Recommendations are editorial. Implementation is irrelevant: the people who make them should be held liable and accountable exactly as if they had made them by hand.
Quoting a tweet by @dellcam ↗
♥ 25↺ 4
October 2021
323 tweets
@RonWyden, cited in this great @themarkup piece, isn't wrong that app stores should crack down on location data. But Google could have an even bigger impact on privacy if it stopped participating in this for their own benefit! twitter.com/JuliaAngwin/st…
♥ 2
Replying to @podehaye and @andymstone
This is a print product, my kids read it, it's great. It's been around for several years. They don't get profiled and the only data involved is the parents' subscription which you can file access requests on any time.
♥ 3
Yes, your probabilistic identity graph is "85% accurate" on Safari — in very much the same way that we share 85% of our DNA with mice.
♥ 19↺ 1
I'm sad to see Max leave @nytimes data governance, and I know a lot of you enjoyed working with him too. But I know he's moving on to do some Really Awesome Things — so watch that space!
Quoting a tweet by @MaxGendler ↗
♥ 7↺ 1
Replying to @arnaud_blc
So... just like the original statement?
Honestly, is there even another methodology worth pursuing?
♥ 14
Replying to @mikaelf
Well spotted! Not that many people would recognise it.
Replying to @mikaelf
I'm wondering if it's worth getting the new model. Probably not right away, but it does seem cool and mine is from the very early days.
Replying to @mikaelf
The videos look amazing, it's just a little pricy. But maybe for Christmas 🎄
Replying to @montezumachavez
This is absolutely an awesome job, but just to clarify: this position is in the data department but not in data governance! That role doesn't report to me, though we get to work together a fair bit!
♥ 1
Replying to @montezumachavez
Oh, there was no need to delete it! It's an awesome job and working for Kendell is really great :)
♥ 1
Replying to @mariafarrell and @PrivacyMatters
There's a question of when, too. Ten years ago a bunch of people I know went to those places to change them from the inside. ("Think of the scale!") Things have become much worse since. Believing you'll be the one to make a difference seems at best like hubris.
♥ 5
Replying to @PrivacyMatters and @mariafarrell
I wouldn't begrudge someone wanting to make a difference and I do wish that they would succeed. However, hubris might be the wrong word but I do think that there is an issue in trying to do that with the hindsight that we have.
♥ 2
I've watched many of the smartest and kindest hearted people I have met do that. Judging from results, even with sympathy, it's sadly obvious that they have failed. But also, it's clear that there is something that keeps them convinced to stay there and I don't think it's money.
♥ 4
Putting all that together, thinking that you're THE one who will finally turn those companies around when such a long list of others have failed seems to call for an explanation, a word?
Replying to @PrivacyMatters and @mariafarrell
I just mean in the sense that if you're preceded by a long list of people who tried pretty much what you're trying and failed, why do the same thing and expect different results? "The one" in the sense of "THIS time it's going to work."
♥ 1
Replying to @Chronotope and @usefathom
I came here to recommend Fathom 😁 On my own site, I rolled my own, but I think that's dumb.
♥ 2
Replying to @jason_kint and @arctictony
It's a nice thought Jason, but calling it "football" will only confuse me more! ⚽ 🥅
♥ 2
Replying to @C___CS
Hi! Thanks for doing & writing it! Happy to talk any time, I'm curious to hear if you have plans to keep researching the area (if it's not too early to think about that), too.
♥ 1
Replying to @dontcallmeDOM and @TzviyaSiegman, @w3c
I would definitely find it interesting, it's next door to the governance one that is floating around (I've been sloooow getting back to [gestures at everything]). I wonder if @C___CS would potentially be interested?
♥ 1
Replying to @null and @MrsMRS_PhD
What's the other kind of governance? ;-)
That's an excellent choice for our lucky Californian friends. I'm excited to see what Ashkan will be doing!
Quoting a tweet by @ashk4n ↗
♥ 13↺ 1
Replying to @francesc
♥ 1
Replying to @npdoty
This is outstanding — yay!
Nothing urgent to discuss but if you're near Princeton do holler!
♥ 1
A word processor in which I can work directly on the outline but also edit the content of sections properly is something I've wanted forever. I don't know how the brains of people who build these things work, but alas not like mine. It's all flat.
Quoting a tweet by @temptoetiam ↗
♥ 4
Replying to @hibaymj
I think you don't: you use separate renderings. The full doc and the outline on the side, except the outline is editable.
♥ 1
Replying to @hibaymj
I think we might be talking about different things? Assuming a doc made of properly nested sections, this should be relatively straightforward.
Replying to @temptoetiam
I've used several, but I've never found one that worked for me. I hope it works for you! I wish @NotionHQ and gdocs just had useful and manipulatable outlines of the doc.
Replying to @hibaymj
If you're thinking about the fully general case then yes! I think it's untractable. At the very least, a wysiwyg view of a proper document structure is impossible. I've struggled unreasonable amounts of time with that too 😁 But I'm pretty sure that what I have in mind works.
♥ 1
For concreteness purposes, take a gdoc with section structure and have it show the outline on the side. Now we imagine that's editable. Changing the titles: OK. Dragging sections to reorder (such that it moves the text too: I think OK. Adding/deleting: OK. That's all?
♥ 1
Replying to @hibaymj
That's the general case. I'm not looking for the general case. I mean, I would be but I'm certain that it can't be done wysiwyg. I just want the section outline!
♥ 1
Replying to @hibaymj
Sure, but everyone else is wrong, so 🤷♂️ 😉
More seriously, I think these aren't strong constraints, they are just a feature for chaptering.
♥ 1
Imagine if people read the Web on the Web instead of on Facebook, Google AMP, and all that.
The difference in revenue alone would lead to a Cambrian explosion of quality information sources.
Quoting a tweet by @andraz ↗
♥ 59↺ 20
Replying to @null and @nhoizey
If we make the Web more private — a separate project but with the same goals — then I don't know if Outbrain will have a business model.
Replying to @null and @nhoizey
I guess, but if they can't sell data I don't know how well they perform. I think ITP already hit them pretty hard.
Replying to @null and @paulduplantis
Thanks — this looks right up my alley!
Replying to @LeeTomson
You say that like they stopped :)
Replying to @amyoleary
I can't reproduce this and we don't have Facebook buttons on the site, or FB trackers outside of marketing pages. If you're willing to share more information about how that happened, I'm happy to dig into it more!
♥ 3
Replying to @null and @nhoizey
LOL, somehow I doubt it :)
Replying to @AmeliasBrain and @dauwhe, @LauraB7
I think we really just use "putain mais WTF quoi."
♥ 2
Replying to @amyoleary
Thank you! That's useful — I'll dig and see if it the video player. I suspect it could be a video ad using something Facebook related, which might be outside our control. Thanks a lot!
♥ 3
I agree with Charlie that we can think about more than one problem at once, but on this specific topic I would go one step further:
Antitrust might not solve but it would very significantly help with content moderation issues. 🧵⏬
Quoting a tweet by @cwarzel ↗
♥ 10↺ 4
A key problem with toxic content isn't that it exists — that's hardly new — but that it gets amplified. With monopolies, when toxic content becomes successful, it spreads like wildfire.
It's exactly like parasites on a monoculture: get one and it's a blight.
♥ 4↺ 1
Another way to look at it is that unintended consequences and failure are inevitable (just ask the Facebook engineers who had so much fun yesterday), so we need to structure our world so that failure remains local and the rest robust.
♥ 2
We are dealing with companies that are openly seeking to intermediate all the world's information or relationships. These goals are explicitly incompatible with a healthy, diverse, collaborative society.
♥ 8↺ 1
We tend to think too much about antitrust from purely the economic angle, but it is also a key consideration in building the right infrastructure for a thriving digital society. Finding structural remedies to a monoculture with just two gatekeepers for all is key!
♥ 6↺ 1
Replying to @kilonova_gold
I never said "sufficient" though.
Do you care about tech, policy, standards, a thriving future for media, and a digital ecosystem that makes people's lives richer and more fulfilling, and all of society stronger and more just?
Come join my team as a Data Governance Sr Manager at @nytimes!
nytimes.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/NYT/job/…
♥ 39↺ 30
Replying to @FremyCompany and @AmeliasBrain, @dauwhe, @LauraB7
In Paris the "quoi" is mandatory, the sentence isn't well-formed without it.
♥ 4
Replying to @struthious and @nytimes
Within some limits (eg. of where we can hire and which meetings need to be attended), it can be, yes. We're all remote until some time next year anyway!
♥ 1
Maria Farrell gets the analysis of @FrancesHaugen's whistleblowing exactly right.
Quoting a tweet by @mariafarrell ↗
♥ 5↺ 1
Replying to @davegehring
I used to think that too, but then we actually got to try it at scale with XHTML and it turns out that it doesn't buy anything much. It also can't work in a large network of independent nodes. AMP only works because it's backed by the Google police, and even then it's brittle.
Replying to @davegehring
Non sequitur?
Replying to @davegehring
I've seen AMP revenue numbers for newspapers of all sizes. In no case did it produce outcomes better than a 30% drop in ad revenue. In theory, sites that get zero traffic otherwise could improve, but that's a tiny fragment of the revenue news orgs have lost to AMP.
Replying to @tim_libert
But they were hurting, Tim, hurting bad and they didn't even have a name for the pain.
♥ 1
Replying to @davegehring
Is it secret?
Amazing thread, I strongly *recommend* it. (via @mariafarrell)
Quoting a tweet by @jennifercobbe ↗
♥ 11↺ 2
Replying to @IelTop and @lorrietweet, @Marchioritter, @fielding, @jonathanmayer, @random_walker, @IABEurope, @SZimmeck
Cool!
♥ 1
Replying to @btsavage and @mariafarrell
The algorithm that can resist a dad joke hasn't been born yet.
Very interesting thread from @RepCasten on the danger of persuasive technology applied to finance, here with tragic consequences.
We're only at the beginning of our journey trying to reckon with digital persuasion and clawing control back. 🧵
Quoting a tweet by @RepCasten ↗
♥ 7↺ 5
There is a lot of good (and ongoing) work on nudging, dark patterns, and defining what is manipulative or deceptive. The part that worries me, though, comes from asymmetries of data, automation, and personalisation. It's inordinately harder to defend against digital nudging.
♥ 1
If your nudge is to put some given food a little farther from reach, I can detect it and compensate.
If it's the same for everyone, someone else can detect it and share.
And most physical environments aren't totally designed, you retain agency and control inside of them.
Replying to @consttype
Yeah, but it needs a lot more definition before it can do any actual work!
Replying to @petetiarks and @mariafarrell
Exactly, I've been wanting to propose responsibility changes along those lines. Recommendation is editorial. If you're recommending something you neither host nor monetise (eg. a movie critic), that's fine, but if you recommend, host, and monetise — you're on the hook.
♥ 2
Replying to @fielding and @IelTop, @lorrietweet, @Marchioritter, @jonathanmayer, @random_walker, @IABEurope, @SZimmeck
Preferences have defaults. Overwhelmingly, users expect their browser not to share data, it's the logical thing to set the default accordingly. People who have a preference to be tracked, and change the setting accordingly.
Replying to @petetiarks and @mariafarrell
Transparency would be great, but I think there have to be consequences at some point. Showing that your criteria are reasonable is one thing, but what happens when they're not?
Replying to @fielding and @IelTop, @lorrietweet, @Marchioritter, @jonathanmayer, @random_walker, @IABEurope, @SZimmeck
I don't even understand what logic you claim to be applying. There is always a default, and defaulting to what the majority of users prefer is both easy and measurable.
And both GDPR and CCPA can work with DNT; we know, because they work with GPC.
♥ 1
Replying to @petetiarks and @mariafarrell
Right, so you're thinking about some degree of safe harbour. I worry a bit about regulatory capture and corporate lawyers turning this into compliance theatre, but on the principle I agree.
I'm not against making things somewhat harder to automate, though :)
♥ 2
Replying to @fielding and @IelTop, @lorrietweet, @Marchioritter, @jonathanmayer, @random_walker, @IABEurope, @SZimmeck
I mean, I can see that you're trying to argue from a place in which nothing that might disagree with your biases can possibly be measured, but people's attitudes to the sale of their data are known and measured.
Replying to @fielding and @IelTop, @lorrietweet, @Marchioritter, @jonathanmayer, @random_walker, @IABEurope, @SZimmeck
OK, I'll leave you to your conspiracy theories and go enjoy my evening then.
Replying to @jamesheathers and @temptoetiam
One thing I never understood is throw pillows. Can you explain throw pillows?
Replying to @jamesheathers and @temptoetiam
I cannot thank you enough, this knowledge has transformed my life.
♥ 1
Replying to @v0max
Sometimes they're pillows you throw on the floor to sleep on the bed, and then put back on the bed to make it pretty all day when no one is there to enjoy it.
♥ 1
Replying to @null and @steveglista, @jamesheathers, @temptoetiam
Practical or allergic to dust mites, eventually what's the difference?
Replying to @kjhealy and @pardoguerra, @edenmedina
That's only really cool if you also set up networking over Telex.
♥ 4
Replying to @mariafarrell
Totally not jealous, the weather here is every bit as lovely 😁 Have a great time!
♥ 2
Replying to @mnot and @rigow
I'm not sure that what we're doing is derived from Pics, though?
Replying to @rigow and @mnot
I get the lineage, but at that level of stripped down I don't know if we can really be talking about doing the same thing? Also, I don't see GPC heading into opt-in territory.
Replying to @mnot and @rigow
I think that making it possible for users to control the behaviour of search (as with PICSRule) and similar controls (eg. asserting control over recommendation) would be worth doing. I'm not sure this is the right route, though.
Replying to @rigow and @mnot, @NOYBeu
I don't think that it is required in the EU either, what is needed there is a rethink of the application of consent (which is within the realm of DPA guidance). Trying to automate this just kicks the can of picking defaults down the road.
♥ 1
Replying to @kkomaitis
I mean, have you seen how they handle timezones?
Oh dear — just when I thought things couldn't possibly get more eventful in Web politics, @w3cmemes decides to return from the dead!
♥ 13↺ 2
Replying to @alextcone and @w3cmemes
I see someone made a meme about that already over the night :-D
♥ 1
I guess I had to be one of these people, too.
♥ 6
Replying to @tobie
"I know this real world that isn't in today's Spelling Bee" has become a niche but persistent twitter genre.
♥ 1
Replying to @tobie
Spelling Bee is cool though, you should try it. I don't like games but I'll play it once a month or so :)
Replying to @swodinsky
Small nit, but: the hardware id and the AdID are more than enough on their own (let alone together) to uniquely identify without fingerprinting!
♥ 2
Replying to @swodinsky and @blakereid
Putting it in the privacy policy isn't enough if they make deceptive claims elsewhere, especially more salient ones I would think.
♥ 4
I've been pondering this theory that Star Trek's depiction of high modernism as somehow practical and utopian is, given its importance in tech, a contributor to today's structural problems in tech. But this is still a bit too much on the nose.
Quoting a tweet by @nytimes ↗
♥ 6↺ 1
Yes, I realise that this tweet may burn some important bridges. 🖖🏻💋
♥ 3
Replying to @Chronotope
Oh I haven't forgotten, I just prefer my socialism without high modernism! 🏴🏴🏴 😁
♥ 2
Replying to @roessler and @johnwilander
Ah, might I recommend it to the discerning tech reader? What it lacks in privacy or command of cryptography it largely makes up by the sheer quantity of performance issues it creates.
♥ 3
Replying to @gpxl_
It's still just a toy theory, and I might not bother digging more. And there are plenty of good values in there! But values are one thing, how they are implemented matters too (in the real world, in imagination things can pan out).
Taylorism was supposed to eliminate class differences (by making work more efficient and everyone rich). Nice values with bad implementations bite back!
Technocratic, engineered society, computers just answer questions, meritocracy, little politics... That world sounds nice, but trying to build it would look quite different I fear.
Highly interesting read on the intersection of contextual integrity and differential privacy, with notes on issues of collective privacy. Good stuff.
Quoting a tweet by @sbenthall ↗
♥ 11↺ 4
Replying to @jathansadowski
It's nice to give credit, it's also nice to show that the article is researched (even things that weren't used) and not some random blog post. I feel newspapers really fail at showing how the work differs from just saying stuff.
♥ 3
Replying to @ubiquity75
"Let's Uberise The State Before Someone Does It For Us" is the most Maréchal Pétain vibe.
Replying to @null and @dansereduick, @RobertJBateman
Note that I can't access OIG from… New Jersey, so it might be something else?
Replying to @RobertJBateman
Errrr. What?
Replying to @null and @dansereduick, @RobertJBateman
Maybe they can tell I'm not from here.
The @DPCIreland has a great idea to get rid of cookie banners.
The downside is that it also gets rid of the GDPR.
Quoting a tweet by @NOYBeu ↗
♥ 21↺ 6
Replying to @lvedkhanna and @lvedd
Strong "never worn" vibes :(
@ntnsndr on the renaissance of creative governance that is shaping up around DAOs. thereboot.com/beyond-cryptoe…
♥ 8↺ 2
Replying to @jathansadowski
I have a third mode where I read everything but let Jesus decide how it should be organised, presented, etc.
♥ 3
Replying to @fantasai and @rachelnabors
Awww, that means a lot, thank you 🤗. I can see it, "runaway summer New York Times best-seller 'Letters to the Advisory Committee of the World Wide Web Consortium vol. xvii' storms the literary scene" 😁
♥ 10
Replying to @hober and @fantasai, @rachelnabors
Well, that makes it worth writing even if the best-seller part doesn't pan out.
♥ 4
Replying to @fantasai and @hober, @rachelnabors
You make a compelling argument, Honorary Boardmember!
♥ 2
Emeritus, not honorary. (Mornings...)
♥ 1
Replying to @null and @dauwhe, @hober, @fantasai, @rachelnabors
A compelling vision of astounding artistry. Perfect for AC meetings in the North, too!
♥ 2
Replying to @alexanderdanilo and @fantasai, @rachelnabors
A fitting appendix to any AC material, really.
♥ 3
Replying to @BuggeErik and @DPCIreland
I know...
Is it normal for Irish authorities to intimidate NGOs? Isn't there someone there to rein in the rogue @DPCIreland?
Reminder that you can support @NOYBeu, who are working in European citizens' interests the way all DPAs should: noyb.eu/en/support-us.
Quoting a tweet by @maxschrems ↗
♥ 33↺ 9
Periodic reminder that "Open Web" is an oxymoron, and that whenever you hear someone defending that you should question their understanding of either word.
♥ 16↺ 1
Replying to @catthekin
I hear you, but I don't think it's true. We don't have a word for "society excluding Philip Morris and Dupont." These companies that appropriating something that's ours and then misusing it, and that's the whole of the Web — our Web.
♥ 3
Calling the part they haven't enclosed yet by a different name concedes what they've already taken. I don't think either of us wants that :)
♥ 2
Replying to @elenita_tweets
In my experience, it's mostly folks saying they don't want to be obstructed from tracking people :)
♥ 1
Replying to @julien51
That's 100% true, but IMHO all the more reason to use a single term so that it's clear what is being appropriated!
♥ 1
Replying to @julien51
You're awfully pessimistic for someone openly in web3!
Replying to @Log3overLog2 and @johnwilander, @alextcone, @ashk4n, @SnowflakeDB
It's possible that the original list may have been wrong instead :)
♥ 1
Replying to @johnwilander and @dialtone_, @alextcone, @Log3overLog2, @ashk4n, @SnowflakeDB
John.
♥ 3
Replying to @alextcone and @johnwilander, @dialtone_, @Log3overLog2, @ashk4n, @SnowflakeDB
Isn't that what Twitter Spaces are? The problem with your list though is that most people on it would never get approval to speak :)
♥ 4
Replying to @JamieXML and @catthekin
I don't think we have the one place (it kind of goes with the philosophy that we wouldn't!), but thereboot.com/beyond-cryptoe… gives some hints that might not be intuitive to all, I think!
↺ 1
Also gnosisguild.mirror.xyz/t4F5rItMw4-mlp… — lots of material in there.
♥ 3↺ 1
Replying to @julien51
Yeah, we'll probably have to get rid of web2 to save the Web.
Not that big a loss!
♥ 1
The interesting question, IMHO, is to look at it from the angle of things we wish we could do, but haven't been able to scale well easily. Like coops. Like forms of local (or the net equivalent) governance that worked well until the nation-state took over the whole niche.
♥ 1↺ 1
There is a strong convergence between common-pool resources, platform cooperativism, and the capabilities of blockchain systems. No one has all the pieces yet, but it's happening. And it's a hell of a lot more interesting than all the coin stuff in the limelight.
♥ 2
Beautiful new mural on Chestnut St. in Princeton.
♥ 27↺ 2
(If you want similar work done, my wife made it! 😘)
♥ 13↺ 1
Replying to @shane_m5
Yes!
Cryptoeconomics as a limitation on governance, from @ntnsndr. The web suffers from the difficulty of collective action in an open system at massive scales. This paper covers a lot of the creativity going into lifting us out of the "might makes right" web.
osf.io/wzf85/?view_on…
♥ 7↺ 3
Replying to @julien51 and @ntnsndr, @VitalikButerin, @UnlockProtocol
I know, I'm familiar with his work; I'm not surprised about the IRL bit! I've read the response too, we have a lot to do.
♥ 2
It's very encouraging to see major publishers ramp up data governance and put people at the helm who get privacy and the necessary reforms of advertising! I'm excited to see what Max does there!
Quoting a tweet by @MaxGendler ↗
♥ 19↺ 2
Replying to @tanyatussing and @jason_kint, @newscorp, @nytimes
Not an official Times comment, but speaking personally I'm certainly thrilled to see other major publishers building their data governance teams by hiring NYT data governance people 😁
♥ 2
Replying to @tanyatussing and @jason_kint, @newscorp, @nytimes
I hear you! But I would like it to be the other way around: people just get privacy by default and we don't need a seal for the good ones because that's the baseline. Auditing is very hard…
♥ 2
Replying to @tanyatussing and @jason_kint, @newscorp, @nytimes
I think it is! But it'll be a journey and there's a lot to do.
♥ 2
Excellent thread about how fucked up identity and verification already were before we started making them even worse with computers.
Quoting a tweet by @m_older ↗
♥ 16↺ 7
Replying to @QueenOfRats and @morinotsuma, @arghgr, @m_older, @kerryhowell, @BoundGalaxy
On top of naming traditions, typesetting can also throw a wrench in. French official papers have given and family names on different lines, whereas in the US they're all lined up. Because of this I have "Michel" as my family name in numerous American systems…
♥ 4↺ 1
Replying to @swodinsky and @LAM_Barrett
Yeah, recommendation is an editorial decision, why would it matter how it's implemented, by human or code? And if you receive consideration of any kind (monetary, data) for the target of the recommendation that you editorially put forth, why aren't you its publisher?
♥ 4
Replying to @null and @adjiboussodieng
My rice cooker is "Neuro Fuzzy," so that day is closer than you may think!
Replying to @null and @adjiboussodieng
Yeah, you've gotta have that hyperparameter tuning!
Replying to @henryfarrell
I've been wondering if these are really two different elites, or if it is rather that High Tech Modernism can be deployed with fewer people in charge (thanks to the automation of gatekeeping) so that the bitter disputes are from the shrinking of that professional class.
"High Tech Modernism" is out! I've been waiting for this one the way one waits for the next season of The Expanse.
Quoting a tweet by @henryfarrell ↗
♥ 7
Replying to @null and @koalie
Hey! I like Gru.
I just found out there's a trailer for it! DECEMBER 10!
And s6 was supposed to be the last (even though it didn't hit the end of the books) but apparently there are talks of making more.
ign.com/articles/the-e…
♥ 1
"I don’t know why trans sisters have been moved to risk and sacrifice so much, in different fields. I do know that the changes their revelations demand are not milquetoast solutions like “better oversight” or “more transparency.”" - @mariafarrell
conversationalist.org/2021/10/20/two…
♥ 3↺ 1
This piece packs a *lot*. Other angles like "nudge criticism" and the critique of nuance deserve pieces of their own.
↺ 1
Replying to @henryfarrell
I don't know if HR is threatened in this shift. They don't have gatekeeping power, but hiring and retaining tech talent is hard, especially if you need people who are connected in the right ways to know when shifts are coming.
Replying to @baekdal
Do you have a suggestion for addressing this though? Because I'm not sure I see a way around it. Naming the spokesperson might make it a bit better, but the core issue remains.
♥ 1
Replying to @baekdal
I understand the reader perception issue, but I think that the "talking themselves" part is hard to put into practice. Having the business write directly makes the matter worse, IMHO.
♥ 1
I don't understand how investors assess data-related value. If you haven't already priced increased privacy in, where have you been this past five years? This change has been coming for a while, and Snap seems to be doing great in shifting its focus.
Quoting a tweet by @sarafischer ↗
♥ 24↺ 8
Replying to @alextcone
I mean, when wiping out 25%, that's got to account for some length of time. And we've known about the IDFA change for, what, 15 months? I get that there is a bump in the headwind, but it's not even that bad!
You should read the whole thread, but a few highlights.
Google and Facebook force publishers into terms under which they have to hand over their audience data for arbitrary uses. The animation shows that crisply.
Quoting a tweet by @johnnyryan ↗
♥ 14↺ 6
When I say "force" I'm not being hyperbolic. Under Google's GDPR terms, publishers are also liable for Google's misuse of the data.
There is no question that this is exploitative; but the EU doesn't pursue exploitative antitrust cases and Google knows that.
♥ 3
It's a lot like consenting to Squid Game.
♥ 2
Replying to @DoraCrisan
I'm aware. The problem is not even enforcement, the stuff we need isn't even in DPA guidance. I think it needs strengthening.
Wait — does that mean that all the communication about caring about privacy isn't truthful?
Quoting a tweet by @SamuelStolton ↗
♥ 20↺ 5
Replying to @alextcone
I know there are people who are earnest, but "we care about privacy" and "we have a few people on payroll who care about privacy" aren't the same thing, no?
♥ 1
Replying to @alextcone
Sure, I support them too. But I don't think that changes anything much to the fact that most of big tech, primarily amongst which Google, makes a mockery of privacy.
Returning to this because I've read more of the doc. I'm supportive of people who want to improve privacy, but is that enough when your employer has a team the goal of which is literally to find new ways to defraud businesses and defund publishers?
Quoting a tweet by @jason_kint ↗
♥ 1
There are plenty of great engineering jobs elsewhere. They pay less, but at least you get to know that none of your salary comes from this sort of thing!
♥ 1
Forget about monopoly, how is this not outright deceptive and fraudulent?
Quoting a tweet by @jason_kint ↗
♥ 36↺ 4
Replying to @null and @JohnNGrayGroup, @timnitGebru
That's like saying that a text, a song, a law, a bureaucracy can't be racist. Algorithms can be racist in the same way that any system of power can be.
Replying to @LJamesMcGuigan and @salome_viljoen_, @jakusg
I would love to see a thorough analysis of the mechanisms, all those designer markets you can build when you get all the information.
♥ 4
Replying to @dialtone_ and @Chronotope
I know, the entire notion of opaquely designed markets is deeply problematic. It is worsened the more data the system has access to, too. Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this, will definitely read!
♥ 2
Replying to @megangrA
We'd have a much better web if there were mandated interop for search.
Replying to @LeaVerou and @AtomEditor, @code
Any tips on that switch? I tried a couple times because that seems to be where the new things are happening, but I always head back.
Replying to @LeaVerou and @AtomEditor, @code, @GitHubCopilot
I guess I need a very slow day, last time I spent most of it making a theme I didn't dislike and then I gave up on it 😂
The way Googlers have defended this strategy to me is to say: "Wouldn't it be amazing if you did the content and we did the tech?" No one ever said Don't Be Hopelessly Naive, I guess.
Quoting a tweet by @fasterthanlime ↗
♥ 20↺ 3
Replying to @null and @funnymonkey
I mean, it's only the spiel of every single colonial power, ever. Did that ever go wrong?
Replying to @RDBinns and @smithsam
Lol, yeah, that's crazy shit. Everyone knows the name was picked by Janet Yellen as an *inside* joke.
♥ 2
TFW Google is angry that Facebook isn't doing enough to undermine privacy 😂
Quoting a tweet by @PatrickMcGee_ ↗
♥ 26↺ 14
Considering a new career that requires less familiarity with cyberpunk tropes.
♥ 33↺ 1
Replying to @perigrin and @GreatDismal
Nah, goat yoga strikes me as much more of a Pattern Recognition thing :)
Also, don't you call my darlings' eyes "plastic!"
♥ 1↺ 1
Replying to @steltenpower
These ones are symmetric, yes. You're thinking of the dahut (or dahu) — and yes, I did write that! See dahut.pm.org/dahut_story.ht… for the TRUTH.
♥ 2
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
I was thinking the same thing!
From what I put together, there's no gain in being someone who brings "stop energy" but you can always very easily move to another team. So, structurally, the people who know something's a bad idea don't stick around to help.
That's how, whenever you talk to someone sensible there, you always get "oh yeah, that's clearly bad — it's with this other team, I honestly don't know what they're thinking. We're more like lots of different tribes."
Strong confirmation bias potential :-/
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
I mean, that's literally the charter of the AMP groups.
Replying to @kkomaitis
And it comes with cheese!
Replying to @null and @amyvdh
The level of dad joking about "Greatest Goat Of All Time" did trigger significant levels of formal objections from daughters :)
The Global Privacy Control is coming to Firefox!
Getting rid of third-party cookies is only part of the story: sites can still track you with fingerprinting and hashed emails. GPC helps to protect you against that, too.
washingtonpost.com/technology/202…
♥ 23↺ 6
We support GPC on @nytimes, and a growing number of publishers are joining us. On top of helping with your privacy, GPC helps publishers remain independent in the face of "NOBO" strategies through which platforms seek to control the entire Web — and the media with it.
♥ 5
Some important jurisdictions support GPC — but not enough! We can make it work everywhere, and most notably it is a sensible option under the GDPR. Tell your friends (in government, at data authorities)!
berjon.com/gpc-under-the-…
♥ 4
Replying to @tim_libert
That depends what you mean by "support DNT." Full DNT support, with the response header and all, is something I looked at but it required more work while DNT was being phased out — didn't seem worth it. But we accept the DNT header as equivalent to Sec-GPC.
Replying to @tim_libert
Sure, but then it's just accepting DNT as a synonym for GPC. In that sense, we're supporting DNT!
Not making any announcement, but our approach to privacy is always incrementalist so it's a ramp up. And the scope for these things is already larger than EU/CA.
Replying to @tim_libert
It's not so much a struggle, actually, it really helps to do things in a way that allows us to measure impact — or lack thereof! Evidently, I don't want to break The Times, but I also want to make sure this can work more generally and so the learning helps.
♥ 1
Replying to @ericghill
It can't stop sites doing that, but it can stop them from legally selling the data they get from it — which reduces incentives.
Replying to @msdixon
Does that mean the same thing as in French?
Replying to @swodinsky
Is it possible that a lot of that growth came from advertising, in which they were also revealed to be running a massive collusion and deception scheme — or set of schemes, really?
Indeed, so long as crime pays…
♥ 5↺ 1
Replying to @msdixon
I would like my restraint in the making of jokes to be noted as part of my permanent record.
♥ 1
Replying to @johnwilander
It would be nice to have private attribution in podcasts. (This may be a hint 😉.)
♥ 5
Replying to @EliotSeattle
Hahaha, well played 😂
Replying to @HalSinger
In fairness, big tech has often set things up in a heads you lose, tails I win way. It's easy to get the impression that any intervention is doomed to fail or backfire.
That said, we do have policy options here and we don't need blue ribbon whatever!
♥ 2
Replying to @montezumachavez
Yeah, I mean, whoever thought that getting Google to design a mechanism in support of competition was a good idea must have been on drugs.
♥ 3
Here's the magic trick: we can't prevent bad speech, but we can keep it from creating harm at stupendous scale. And the best tools for that are antitrust and the end of surveillance.
We don't need content moderation as much as we need amplification moderation. t.co/fCzNtTqpCG
♥ 54↺ 18
Replying to @null and @blakereid
That's what I'm saying too 😁 I agree that the shift to CoMo is a bad sign, but I think the answer is the same remedies.
Replying to @btsavage
There might be too much to unpack in this for Twitter, but a few notes.
First, antitrust doesn't mean splitting at the FB/IG/WA boundary — that's just reverting acquisitions. As @jhugman points out, various interop-based approaches are likely better (handwaving lots of details).
Crucially, different systems with different recommendation pathways is important so that we have editorial diversity.
Reed's Law cuts both ways: 1bn people getting QA pushed to them and another 1bn getting some other madness is a lot less dangerous than 2bn getting QA.
Second, stopping surveillance doesn't mean going contextual. That's the maximalist view that the only alternative to invasive practices is to do nothing. You know from CI that that's not true!
There is a whole set of parameters to apply to use but not abuse data.
Things like retention time, curbs on profiling, limits to AB testing, not reusing content provided for other purposes (eg. mining pics or 2FA numbers), keeping contexts separate, etc.
Replying to @TzviyaSiegman
Small eco-friendly house somewhere green and majestic, can walk to the village for coffee. Writing books.
♥ 5
Oh, I also want a cat and a fireplace, like @amyvdh. It might not be too far from her friendly witch house :)
♥ 3
Replying to @btsavage and @jhugman
Because the value of data is superadditive, notably when exploited across contexts. With no cap on data, things revert to anticompetitive winner-take-all dynamics. Basically, I'm looking at privacy as a key part of an antitrust structural intervention.
As for the value of antitrust in fighting bad speech, it's a question of not having an amplification monoculture. We used to have hundreds of thousands of gatekeepers worldwide. Bad speech sure go through, but spreading massively was hard and rare.
Now we have a world with basically two gatekeepers. It's exactly as if we had let Murdoch and Berlusconi buy up and run all the media everywhere. Any bad speech (as a parasite) that cracks the code will build scale — just like you'd expect from a monoculture.
A cool concept to make sense of the metaverse is that of a "total institution": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_ins…
♥ 7↺ 1
For all the mockery, it's the logical next step. We've transitioned from user-operated computers to controlled environments shaped by behavioural experimentation, but there's only so much you can optimise and control on a small screen. Immersive pushes the frontier.
♥ 3↺ 1
Remember when knowing how to use a computer meant you weren't on Team Discipline? Good times.
♥ 2↺ 1
Replying to @null and @benharnett
You say that like both can't be true at the same time.
Replying to @CaseyNewton
Two rings to rule them all.
Replying to @trekonomics
Last I was there, Montreuil was the new Brooklyn.
I'm beginning to suspect that Brooklyn might, in fact, be the new Brooklyn.
Replying to @bramabramson
Ooh, classification and the making of people — super interesting, thanks!
Let's hope no one finds this so interesting that they will get it from SciHub, though.
Replying to @tim_libert
OMG that's so painful.
Replying to @gsnedders and @TzviyaSiegman
Can you set it up not too far from the houses Amy and I are moving to? That sounds like a lovely place to drop by for impromptu tea at now and then.
♥ 5
Replying to @jyasskin and @TzviyaSiegman
I've been thinking along similar lines (if I don't make it with a book — which seems likely :). Have you read "The Smart Enough City"? I thought it aligned very well with my idea of how to do tech right and I'm glad some of that's happening at the city level.
♥ 1
Meh ta.
♥ 6↺ 1
Replying to @katyaabaz
No reason we can't do both!
Replying to @jason_kint
In the middle of that train wreck, I have to admit this is high-quality trolling from whoever runs the @meta account 😁
♥ 6
Replying to @Rich_Harris and @nytgraphics
Oh man, I'm sorry to see you go! Congrats on the next step, though!
♥ 3
Good thread here. I'm exicted about the PATCG too. Adding a few thing to what Ben has said. 🧵
Quoting a tweet by @btsavage ↗
♥ 8↺ 1
A lot of the W3C work on ads so far has been about people explaining their differing views and showing their different potential solutions to the (many) problems of adtech.
That has been useful, but at some point this is standards: you need to pick ONE.
♥ 5
I think the dynamic of establishing standards here will be difficult at times, but will be less hostile than the more open-ended conversations. At some point, the group has to make a resolution and that is the end of the debate (unless new technical evidence surfaces).
♥ 4
Anyway — we have a *lot* of work to do. Hated as it is, advertising is a key infrastructure of democracy. The best time to get it right was twenty years ago. The second best time is now.
♥ 26↺ 4
Matt is right that criminal charges are the way to go — and not just for Facebook. One specific topic that I would like to hear more about is violations of the Economic Espionage Act when using data to misappropriate trade secrets.
Quoting a tweet by @matthewstoller ↗
♥ 30↺ 8
Replying to @tim_libert
It's a tough choice, but strategically I don't think that we can fix climate change without an operating democracy. That's why I'm still working in tech: I think this is on the critical path.
♥ 1
Replying to @telecomsense
Yeah, but sadly I'm not a lawyer and I don't know lawyers familiar with how such cases work! Reading about it, it would seem to make sense.
♥ 2
Replying to @null and @avadacatavra, @Simone_Biles
I'm seeing her tomorrow!
Replying to @joftius
Would those bring inducement that a blog wouldn't? My few recent posts got a lot of great engagement. It's made me wonder if people don't miss blogs.
♥ 2
Replying to @iMeluny and @privacyguru
What you dislike about ads aligns with what I dislike about ads, but there is a lot of dislike for advertising in general (outside of big impressive ads). And really bad reputation for adtech, beyond just on privacy. Hopefully that's fixable!
♥ 3
Happy Caturday!
♥ 68↺ 2
Replying to @null and @benharnett
You mean compared to the utter chaos one can observe behind me in video calls? 😁
Replying to @tiffehr_gone and @tiffehr
He recently discovered this couch and it's a whole love story unfolding.
♥ 1
Replying to @stephanierieger
Nothing if not an innate sense of harmony.
Replying to @__apf__
Thank you! I can't claim credit though: the shelf came with the house, the couch is actually @maxleroy89's, and I may happen to be living with an industrial designer 😁
♥ 2
Replying to @shails and @IABTechLab, @googlechrome, @firefox, @Apple, @MicrosoftEdge
Agreed: there's stuff in the pipeline that'll work with both. I think that so long as it aligns with web values, the implementation stack should not matter.
♥ 2
Replying to @PrivacyTechRise and @globalprivctrl, @nytimes, @brave, @pes10k, @wesleyan_u, @SZimmeck
Featuring @BuggeErik in the chat as impromptu moderator!
♥ 1
Replying to @tiffehr_gone and @tiffehr
We have a mattress propped up vertically against the wall and they still manage to sleep on it, so I'm hardly surprised 😁
♥ 1
Replying to @salome_viljoen_
Maybe this whole critical tech thing is too hard and I'd have a smoother time as a cat influencer.
♥ 2
Replying to @BuggeErik and @PrivacyTechRise, @globalprivctrl, @nytimes, @brave, @pes10k, @wesleyan_u, @SZimmeck
Not at all, it was good!
♥ 1
Replying to @montezumachavez and @privacypen
I'll have to figure out how to remove tracking from the TV, then!
Replying to @montezumachavez and @privacypen
Get on the plane!
Simone Biles!
♥ 1
Replying to @ShannonVallor
They've somehow managed to find people more fake than the virtual setting. It's impressive.
♥ 4↺ 1
Replying to @recifs
Not even!
Muahaha.
♥ 7