I had an idea in my head: I was going to ask Copilot what the difference between “data” and “information” was. And it wasn’t just the fact that my nearing consultation with my pretty renowed Psychiatrist (whose name I choose not to disclose, despite issues that I’m sure I have a right to expose), made me think about what has been written on paper and what’s in public knowlege. It wasn’t either the stuff about Section 702 of FISA, but it does help put things into context, especially when people who you would never think understood about this stuff claim to have knowledge about it, and you’re very much inclined to question it and go even further, pointing out to multiple violations involving this one person (and I swear, if it were only one, it would be easier, but then came the Space X IPO, and now the week is expecting Open AI to follow suit, along with Anthropic). The motivation was to keep the record clean and straight: clean because, in this political environment so prone to the appearance of crows, unless the cards are redistributed, it matters to protect your reputation (expecting damage by standard) and your morale (which is psychological, but also relates to accountabillity and self-knowledge). To the average person, not interested in personal growth, this isn’t important at all; but they might be interested in making money — and therefore have watched countless proposals for deep dives into the world of AI, that has been, apparently, transforming every part of business.

But my question was way more philosophical. The difference between data and information is, I’ll dare affirm, the presence or absence of technology. Sure, there are nuances; but in terms of what it matters to companies, in a world where we seem to be convinced (by ignorance or by force) that capitalism is the way to go, then it should matter that everyone understands what we’re signing up for (and just for the sake of clarity, there are not enough pens in the market for everyone’s signature, and the staff of Dunder Mifflin would probably have a supply chain risk. The difference between an annotation on a Microsoft Office document and your master password written down on a piece of paper is easier to understand — but that doesn’t mean they can’t emulate your keystrokes. So then, if it can be stolen, what is data? And who does it even belong to?

That’s just the start. The full text of the GDPR can be found here. It was first adopted in April 14, 2016 — but only later enforced, that is, in the European Union. I’ll tell you what’s up: just the gap between draft, formal procedure and actual enforcement will explain a lot about geopolitics and the economy, but people don’t like stuff like that. In a world where everybody wants to talk about the Epstein Files, it matters to see what has been decided about the kids they all claim to care about. For clarity, I’ll reproduce Article 8:

Conditions applicable to child’s consent in relation to information society services

1. Where point (a) of Article 6 applies, in relation to the offer of information society services directly to a child, the processing of the personal data of a child shall be lawful where the child is at least 16 years old.

2. Where the child is below the age of 16 years, such processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child.

3. Member States may provide by law for a lower age for those purposes provided that such lower age is not below 13 years. The controller shall make reasonable efforts to verify in such cases that consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child, taking into consideration available technology. Paragraph 1 shall not affect the general contract law of Member States such as the rules on the validity, formation or effect of a contract in relation to a child.

There we go. We now have, again, established that 1) users below 13 years old should, under no circumstance, by targetted by internet marketing practices nor other users with unknown intent; 2) people above that age, until 18 years old, need parental consent in order to use technologies that make it possible to connect with the world, otherwise known as “social media” — but are object to marketing practices and able, if not fully interested in, interaction with unknown users, as the very algorithm that runs the majority of apps suggests, in a model that makes them profit.

Any questions?

Well, it seems that, for the attentive reader (lol yeah, people still read, right?), there are some questions. Like the difference between “data”, “information” and “knowledge” (further expanding to “intelligence”). This video seems to suggest that the role of metadata is crucial, but lacks answers. It’s important to note that, because technology is involved, data can be “predicted”, and that is widely accepted by now; “information”, however questioned, is more of a robust thing, authoritative in appearance, and believed, defended, fought to be brought to light and akin to “truth”. But having information without knowledge is “not knowing the truth” (or failing to see it — there are mental health conditions associated with it).

I would say that the truth is what you make of it, in this stage of life on Earth we’re living through. But being “intelligent” is going through all of the DIKW Pyramid all the way to the top: I look at my bank account and I see that I have money to afford a smartphone (the financial number would be data). I then make a decision, and buy it. Suddenly, I learn about all I can do with it (I retrive information amongst a suite of apps and contacts, and unbeknownst to me, the phone, and the companies behind its monitoring, also do). We’re talking about information. I follow what’s happening in the world, and I’m a person who knows what’s up. That’s knowledge — but I now have to be careful to say “woke”, because I might face either violence or disputes over whether or not I have certain rights. And then, at the peak of the accumulated processes of digital life and interaction, I try to sort out my web activity, while still navigating, or participating in, social life in the real world, whether or not I have an internet connection or access to a device as I move around. My intelligence will guide me — but they’re giving trillions of dollars for other people, who violated the basic principles of data protection in the first place, not to mention what they said about copyright and patent back in the day when this stuff mattered (copyright has died), to use the information they have on you in favor of a human rights violating system that makes it possible for trillions of dollars to be spent without regulations and while disparaging amounts of people suffer, one way or another.

Time to wise up?