Early in 2012, I bought a copy of Scientific American. I must have been a little desperate for reading material, because it is down quite a bit on my list of magazines I pick up. This particular copy was a good case in point why.
They had an article, "Stars to the Rescue," about celebrities doing various projects to promote science. Never mind that the brand of science promoted is the same pop-version of it that Scientific American itself promulgates.
What struck me was the next article in the printed magazine, on the very same page. Picture below. That article was about online tracking. Was it a cogent piece about the pros (personalization) and cons (loss of privacy) of online tracking? Did it contain any information to readers about the underlying technologies and the various reasons organizations might want this data? No and no. Instead, it was a narrow-minded piece of hysteria fanning the flames of paranoid privacy hawks.
I found this accidental juxtaposition ironic and wanted to share it.
Posts
