"There are usually at least a few tasks required for the organisation to function, such as producing some sort of report for the government, that technically does need to happen, so we can't simply lay everyone off." - At highly regulated companies and companies of sufficient size, reporting to upper management, government and external stakeholders is more than just "a few tasks". This, alongside a continuously developing product ("terrible data"), product pivots ("vision is hard") and growing data volumes IS what "most" data work is, and it is not fundamentally worthless.

So the premise of the post seems a bit flawed. The author seems a bit jaded by bureaucracy and lack of vision at a few organizations they have worked at, which is unfortunate, but by no means an accurate representation of data work.

That's ignoring that much of that government mandated regulation is worthless in itself, not producing the originally intended results and only leading to useless jobs like the author's.

The data is adjusted so that it fits the regulatory demand, not the other way around. In many cases it's still pointless work that produces no value for society.

Yes, I considered raising this point. My work is sometimes necessary to comply with regulation, but frequently that regulation is inherently pointless. That said, this seems to be a different category of worthless. My regular work can literally not be done. This category of work must be done or you risk terrible consequences, but it probably shouldn't be done.

> Just recently some journalist cover the biological aspects of 5+ GHz radio on humans which assume that there are true risks compared to the sub 2 Gigahertz bands.

Can you elaborate on this?

I can't. Here's the link to the publication in German https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/elektrosmog-europa-... and https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/mobilfunk-wie-gesun...

Tagesspiegel is usually a good newspaper but this reasoning is are very light in facts. They should stick with uncovering lobbyism.