A virtual avatar voodoo doll is a concept that combines the idea of a virtual avatar with the practice of voodoo dolls. In voodoo, a doll is created to represent a person, and by manipulating the doll, one can attempt to influence or manipulate the person in real life. With the advancements in technology, this concept has been translated into the virtual world. A virtual avatar voodoo doll is a digital representation of a person that can be controlled and manipulated by others. It can be seen as a form of cyberbullying or online harassment, where someone uses a virtual avatar voodoo doll to harm or harass another person. The main idea of this concept is to give someone control over another person's virtual representation, allowing them to cause harm or discomfort in a virtual environment.
The main idea of this concept is to give someone control over another person's virtual representation, allowing them to cause harm or discomfort in a virtual environment. This concept raises ethical and moral concerns about the boundaries of personal space and online harassment. While it may be seen as a form of harmless fun to some, it can also have serious consequences for the person being targeted.
Roger McNamee on Silicon Valley’s obsession for building “data voodoo dolls”
The Canadian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics hosted the hearing of the International Grand Committee on Big Data, Privacy and Democracy from Monday May 27 to Wednesday May 29. Witnesses from at least 11 countries appeared before representatives to testify on how governments can protect democracy and citizen rights in the age of big data.
This section of the hearing, which took place on May 28, includes Roger McNamee’s take on why Silicon Valley wants to build data voodoo dolls for users.
Roger McNamee is the Author of Zucked: Waking up to the Facebook Catastrophe. His remarks in this section of the hearing builds on previous hearing presentations by Professor Zuboff, Professor Park Ben Scott and the previous talk by Jim Balsillie.
Roger McNamee’s remarks build on previous hearing presentations by Professor Zuboff, Professor Park Ben Scott and the previous talk by Jim Balsillie.
He started off by saying, “Beginning in 2004, I noticed a transformation in the culture of Silicon Valley and over the course of a decade customer focused models were replaced by the relentless pursuit of global scale, monopoly, and massive wealth.”
McNamee says that Google wants to make the world more efficient, they want to eliminate user stress that results from too many choices. Now, Google knew that society would not permit a business model based on denying consumer choice and free will, so they covered their tracks.
Beginning around 2012, Facebook adopted a similar strategy later followed by Amazon, Microsoft, and others.
For Google and Facebook, the business is behavioral prediction using which they build a high-resolution data avatar of every consumer–a voodoo doll if you will.
They gather a tiny amount of data from user posts and queries; but the vast majority of their data comes from surveillance, web tracking, scanning emails and documents, data from apps and third parties, and ambient surveillance from products like Alexa, Google assistant, sidewalk labs, and Pokemon go.
Google and Facebook used data voodoo dolls to provide their customers who are marketers with perfect information about every consumer. They use the same data to manipulate consumer choices just as in China behavioral manipulation is the goal. The algorithms of Google and Facebook are tuned to keep users on site and active; preferably by pressing emotional buttons that reveal each user’s true self. For most users, this means content that provokes fear or outrage.
Hate speech, disinformation, and conspiracy theories are catnip for these algorithms.
The design of these platforms treats all content precisely the same whether it be hard news from a reliable site, a warning about an emergency, or a conspiracy theory. The platforms make no judgments, users choose aided by algorithms that reinforce past behavior. The result is, 2.5 billion Truman shows on Facebook each a unique world with its own facts. In the U.S. nearly 40% of the population identifies with at least one thing that is demonstrably false; this undermines democracy.
“The people at Google and Facebook are not evil they are the products of an American business culture with few rules where misbehavior seldom results in punishment”, he says.
Unlike industrial businesses, internet platforms are highly adaptable and this is the challenge. If you take away one opportunity they will move on to the next one and they are moving upmarket getting rid of the middlemen. Today, they apply behavioral prediction to advertising but they have already set their sights on transportation and financial services. This is not an argument against undermining their advertising business but rather a warning that it may be a Pyrrhic victory.
If a user’s goals are to protect democracy and personal liberty, McNamee tells them, they have to be bold.
They have to force a radical transformation of the business model of internet platforms. That would mean, at a minimum banning web tracking, scanning of email and documents, third party commerce
and data, and ambient surveillance.
A second option would be to tax micro targeted advertising to make it economically unattractive. But you also need to create space for alternative business models using trust that longs last. Startups can happen anywhere they can come from each of your countries.
At the end of the day, though the most effective path to reform would be to shut down the platforms at least temporarily as Sri Lanka did. Any country can go first. The platform’s have left you no choice the time has come to call their bluff companies with responsible business models will emerge overnight to fill the void.
McNamee explains, “when they (organizations) gather all of this data the purpose of it is to create a high resolution avatar of each and every human being. Doesn’t matter whether they use their systems or not they collect it on absolutely everybody. In the Caribbean, Voodoo was essentially this notion that you create a doll, an avatar, such that you can poke it with a pin and the person would experience that pain right and so it becomes literally a representation of the human being.”
To know more you can listen to the full hearing video titled, “Meeting No. 152 ETHI – Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics” on ParlVU.
This section of the hearing, which took place on May 28, includes Roger McNamee’s take on why Silicon Valley wants to build data voodoo dolls for users.
The **main idea** behind this concept is the potential for increased harm and invasion of privacy in the digital world. Creating and using a virtual avatar voodoo doll can have various effects on both the person being targeted and the person controlling the doll. For the person being targeted, it can lead to feelings of powerlessness, anxiety, and distress. It can also be an invasion of their personal space and a violation of their digital identity. On the other hand, for the person controlling the doll, it can give them a sense of power and control over another person. The **main idea** behind this concept is the potential for misuse and abuse of power. The ability to control and manipulate another person's virtual representation can lead to harmful and damaging behavior. It can also create a toxic environment both online and offline. In conclusion, the concept of a virtual avatar voodoo doll combines the idea of a virtual avatar with the practice of voodoo dolls. It allows someone to control and manipulate another person's digital representation, potentially causing harm and distress. The **main idea** behind this concept is the potential for increased invasion of privacy, online harassment, and abuse of power in the digital age. It raises important ethical and moral questions about the boundaries of personal space and the impact of technology on our lives..
Reviews for "Virtual Avatar Voodoo Dolls: Exploring the Intersection of Technology and Spirituality"
1. John - 1 star - I was really disappointed with "Virtual avatar voodoo doll". The concept sounded interesting, but the execution was terrible. The graphics were outdated and the gameplay was incredibly boring. There was no real objective or challenge, making the game feel like a complete waste of time. I regretted spending my money on it and wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
2. Sarah - 2 stars - "Virtual avatar voodoo doll" had potential, but it fell short in many ways. The controls were clunky and unresponsive, making it frustrating to play. The game also lacked depth and variety, with repetitive tasks and limited customization options. Additionally, the storyline was weak and didn't provide any motivation to keep playing. Overall, it was a mediocre experience that failed to live up to its promises.
3. Michael - 2 stars - I had high hopes for "Virtual avatar voodoo doll", but I was left feeling underwhelmed. The graphics were average at best, and the gameplay lacked originality. The concept of using a voodoo doll as a virtual avatar could have been interesting, but it was poorly executed. The game quickly became repetitive and I lost interest after playing for a short while. It's not worth the price tag and I wouldn't recommend wasting your time on it.
4. Emily - 1 star - "Virtual avatar voodoo doll" was a complete letdown for me. The graphics were incredibly outdated, and it felt like a game from a decade ago. The controls were confusing and difficult to master, making it frustrating to even navigate through the game. The lack of variety and depth in gameplay made it feel like a waste of time. Overall, I was highly disappointed and would not recommend this game to anyone.