Replying to @BrettFrischmann
I think it's still counterintuitive to people who haven't been close to the topic?
March 2022
293 tweets
The @nytimes's data governance engineering team is hiring a senior engineer! I work with those folks a lot and they're amazing.
linkedin.com/jobs/view/2934…
♥ 5↺ 2
Maybe you're not a *senior* software engineer yet? Well, the very same great team is ALSO hiring a software engineer.
linkedin.com/jobs/view/2934…
♥ 3
This is getting shared a lot because she says that Putin wouldn't hesitate to use the bomb, but there's a lot more to this interview and all of it is worth reading.
politico.com/news/magazine/…
♥ 16↺ 3
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
Wait until you see Zemmour on Poutine :)
That feeling when your unified "privacy-first" advertising identifier is so good at privacy and at being unified that you have to make a EU-specific version. And *still* no organisation wants to take on the risk of managing it.
adexchanger.com/online-adverti…
♥ 25↺ 5
Replying to @braedon
After identity graphs, we're not so far from needing a unified identifiers graph!
♥ 4
Vous ne me verrez pas souvent partager une vidéo de Zemmour, mais celle-ci est superbe et mérite d'être vue par le plus grand nombre. 😘
youtube.com/watch?v=4dlkGM…
♥ 4↺ 3
Replying to @LMSacasas
This is similar to how some of us have been thinking about privacy: the set of rules about how information can be used not just when it is about people but also when it impacts people. *Receiving* undesired information is also a privacy issue.
♥ 2
I guess I must be "it makes me grumpy when an OS update changes the user interface" years old.
♥ 15↺ 2
Replying to @stimpee
If I can avoid it, me too, but I also don't want to make life hard for the good people who manage my employer's devices.
Replying to @null and @happyborg
Windows peaked with Win 98. No one will change my mind. The Win98 Explorer is still much better than the macOS Finder.
Replying to @null and @happyborg
95 was great, but I really liked the IE integration into the system that 98 brought :)
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
I just like how pretty it is.
Replying to @johnsnolan and @ShannonVallor, @OUPPhilosophy, @Lucy_Randall_
Handbooks also generally eventually come out in paperback editions that are still pricey but significantly cheaper.
I'm really excited to get my hands on this one too. I just know that my cats will love it as much as Shannon's.
Quoting a tweet by @ShannonVallor ↗
♥ 9
Replying to @johnsnolan and @ShannonVallor, @OUPPhilosophy, @Lucy_Randall_
I have a wishlist with about ~10 Oxford Handbooks on it, both out of financial prudence and concern for the load-bearing tolerance of my office's floor I'm hoping to progressively acquire them as paperbacks :)
♥ 1
Replying to @stimpee
Eeeek, that's rough.
Replying to @Ls01 and @rubin
Je suis content que nous puissions partager ce dernier jeu de mots avant la fin du monde.
♥ 2
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
Busted.
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
And all those printed out PDFs from before the the reMarkable.
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
I wonder if Paul Cotton still has his!
A reminder that @nytimes is available over Tor as well for those who need it. See open.nytimes.com/https-open-nyt….
Quoting a tweet by @BBCTech ↗
♥ 11↺ 9
Paris! (via @paberthe)
♥ 9
That's my experience as well. Privacy is a factor, but the main reason I moved away from Google search is just that it's cognitively inferior. It feels like I have to wade through random stuff Clippy thought I wanted instead of just getting results.
Quoting a tweet by @SwiftOnSecurity ↗
♥ 24↺ 5
Replying to @gsnedders
It's a pattern: in order to be good and stay good, you need market feedback. But you don't get that when your products don't win on merit. They made the same switch as Microsoft in self-preferencing and it shows.
♥ 2
Also, Google is the ultimate Clippy company, they want to organise information for you, not to put you in charge. Their ideal product is the Google Home, where that's the only option.
♥ 2
Replying to @fabricedesre and @Neeva, @brave
We really need to fix the browser/search link so that we can spread some good search around again.
Replying to @null and @dansereduick
True, though some are worse (Gmail) while others feel more like someone has actually met a user who doesn't work for Google (GDocs).
Replying to @fabricedesre and @Neeva, @brave, @capyloon
I like that! I think search should be an API so that the browser can pick a better UI and encourage a better business model.
♥ 1
It's not just Ukrainians who can talk to Russian relatives. If you have friends or family there, please reach out to them.
Quoting a tweet by @VALERIEinNYT ↗
♥ 4↺ 3
Replying to @null and @benharnett
An underrated policy instrument.
Replying to @dmarti
I don't know, it's almost as if insurmontable asymmetries of power aren't good for small businesses.
♥ 7↺ 1
This is very exciting news for the team — I really look forward to it!
Quoting a tweet by @kkomaitis ↗
♥ 12↺ 2
Replying to @RobertJBateman and @kkomaitis, @nytimes
Thank you, those are very kind words and much appreciated. And by all means criticism is always welcome!
♥ 2
Replying to @btsavage and @dmarti
But that's exactly the problem, Ben :) As someone who's been in small businesses most of my adult life, the very last thing you need there is yet another massive bureaucracy making mistakes that you have to spend inordinate amounts of energy fighting.
♥ 4
What you need is a system where the power is balanced out. Either there's a person you can easily talk to, ideally in person, and a clear process of accountability (including covering damage if wrongful). The French tax office is pretty decent at that.
♥ 2
Or you need to be able to just go "fuck it, these people suck at this, I'm taking my business elsewhere."
Either way, the asymmetry of power is the problem here. I understand the challenge of scale, but if it doesn't work at the scale it's operating at, then it doesn't work.
♥ 3
Replying to @alextcone and @btsavage, @dmarti, @Meta
I'm well aware of the limitations of the tech (and I don't think that this is Ben's fault!) but all the same: what we're talking about here is the automation of governance (FB has rules about ads, this is how they get enforced). It's too easy to accept the profits but not costs!
♥ 2
Getting governance right is absolutely fucking hard, no question there, and dealing with bureaucracy is painful too. But we should consider that maybe it's hard and painful for good reasons. If FB is as key to SMBs as they claim, this kind of error is devastating.
♥ 2
Replying to @mariafarrell and @kkomaitis, @nytimes
Thank you Maria, those are very kind words that are wonderful to hear.
I know what could be better, we could find a way for you to work with us too!
♥ 3
Replying to @alextcone and @dmarti, @btsavage, @Meta
I know it happens at small companies too — but with those you can usually find someone to yell at (with effect) or you can take your business elsewhere.
♥ 1
Replying to @alextcone and @dmarti, @btsavage, @Meta
The publishers aren't wrong either! Both brands and pubs have legitimate expectations of outcomes. Who gets to decide what corners can be cut by automation is key here. There's almost certainly a Pareto frontier decision to make!
♥ 1
Replying to @alextcone and @dmarti, @btsavage, @Meta
I don't think it's about being mad — it's just that making strong claims about the upsides means actually owning the downsides, profiting from the automation means also covering the cost of its failures, etc. We all tend to stop too easily at "computer can't do it!"
♥ 1
Replying to @alextcone and @dmarti, @btsavage, @Meta
Sure — but that won't stop me from thinking that we can build this whole thing better for SMBs!
♥ 1
Replying to @alextcone and @dmarti, @btsavage, @Meta
Hahaha — that's just because the "we're fucker, we're all gonna die" gig was getting too crowded ;)
♥ 1
Replying to @robleathern
That sounds weird — if you can DM me a link I'll pass it on.
Replying to @BerntsenG and @kkomaitis, @nytimes
We try not to be too terrible at it, either!
Replying to @megangrA
Wait, Alta Vista??
Replying to @btsavage and @dmarti
I don't doubt that, it's a question of choosing the right trade-off.
Replying to @alextcone and @btsavage, @dmarti
Well, shitty tradeoffs that don't admit of an optimal solution is what politics is for! That's why significant infrastructure under unilateral corporate control doesn't work well, to the point that we're better off with an explicitly political process.
♥ 1
Replying to @null and @sivavaid, @ruchowdh
I suspect the idea is that the user controls the recommendation parameters? Still algorithmic, of course, but the user isn't being managed?
Replying to @alextcone and @btsavage, @dmarti
No reason that it should be lawmakers in the national sense (so regulators would likely be a poor choice), there are plenty of other political levels and structures. Think PTA but you get to vote in markets in which you run enough ads.
♥ 1
There's a million ways this would be hard, and we won't design it in a tweet, but we should do it anyway. Them algorithms ain't gonna be saving us.
♥ 1
Replying to @alextcone and @robleathern, @btsavage, @dmarti
Regulators are good for requirements that are nation-state aligned one way or another, but I don't think that that's the best idea here. Having people speak through trade bodies isn't wonderful either as those tend to be single-stakeholder-type (or dominated/captured).
The idea here would be more to design a system that gives different constituencies voice without enabling any to dominate. And the only way they get change is if they hammer out agreements (with the pain that entails).
♥ 1
I think that's what Rob was thinking of? It's certainly what I'm thinking of, and it's why I put it that way in the Garuda example.
Ideally, you might want it layered too. Transnational decisions for what applies everywhere, but more local chapters too where relevant.
Local means you get to develop a polity gradually, and it also means you can adapt to local needs, eg. in America, tits are evil for some reason. Sucks for Americans, but that's not for, say, the Danes to fix.
Replying to @ruchowdh and @jyasskin, @sivavaid
Yeah, I'd expect random and you choose filters and sort (eg. price, reviews as @mmitchell_ai says, or even weight, how many other people have bought it in your neighbourhood, etc.).
I don't know if it's what they mean, but my guess is a clumsy empowerment-to-management spectrum.
At one end you get basically a SQL interface and at the other a black box sort obeying someone else's opaque KPI. The former is hard to use but the latter only works if you believe in the totalitarian view that there's one best way to organise information.
The text you cite seems to offer a choice between two bad extremes :) I hope we can fix this in smarter ways.
Replying to @alextcone and @robleathern, @btsavage, @dmarti
Oh yeah, auditable creatives in the open would be a huge win! It's in fact a good use case for Web Packaging.
♥ 2
Firefox users: head to about:config, search for "globalprivacycontrol", toggle that to true.
There — you have GPC turned on!
♥ 28↺ 8
Replying to @ruchowdh and @mmitchell_ai, @sivavaid
If I'm less speculative and read this the way I would if I had to figure out how to comply, this reads like the statute leaving room for more specific regulation. Absent regs I'd take a "sensible" position (eg. sort by ratings) and wait.
♥ 2
Replying to @coolharsh55
I didn't look at the code to see why they have two!
If you needed a reminder that adtech needs in-depth reform or if someone is trying to sell you the lie that publishers can fix their supply chain alone, this is a lovely thread to rage about!
Quoting a tweet by @Chronotope ↗
♥ 11↺ 4
Replying to @schock
For me it appeared a day or so after I joined my first community. Maybe killing and reopening the app?
Other than that, I am just as baffled as you are.
♥ 1
Replying to @theIastseesaw and @FreddyTweetz, @PDLComics
It's from a @PDLComics a few weeks back!
♥ 1
Wanting to keep the Internet free from capture and centralisation is cool and all, but can we find a way to be methodical and rigorous about it?
berjon.com/capture-resist…
♥ 36↺ 15
Replying to @dml and @kkomaitis, @mnot, @intarchboard
Do you have a link? I know of Mark's draft because he told me about it, I certainly didn't mean to ignore yours!
♥ 1
Replying to @jimcollinson
Thank you!
Replying to @WebDevLaw
Thanks Heather!
Replying to @MaxGendler
Thank you, sir!
Replying to @alextcone
Well you helped! I ended up killing the section where I explained why I'm thinking about a cybersecurity approach here, but it undergirds the argument.
♥ 1
Replying to @dml and @kkomaitis, @intarchboard
This is good and I think there's a lot of agreement! We probably shouldn't be doing this separately for the Internet and Web, if this distinction even means anything any more. I'd like to figure out how to get prescriptive about this across the board.
♥ 1
Replying to @doriantaylor
Thanks! Yes, being resistant to capture means you can maintain sovereignty. It's more of a change of framing towards a defensive practice.
♥ 1
Replying to @doriantaylor
I think the sparsity is mostly because we haven't thought about it as a cohesive discipline. There's a lot of good expertise out there, my hope is that we can get it to coalesce.
♥ 1
This needs to be repeated until we are rid of the delusion that search results could be neutral even if they tried to be.
Every search engine ranks content based on subjective editorial decisions. To pretend otherwise is to lie.
Quoting a tweet by @tante ↗
♥ 38↺ 10
Often, I find that people confuse truth and relevance. If you search for "cats" you could equally well get the names of my cats or a link to the Wikipedia entry on cats. Both are *true* facts, but relevance varies (all the time). There is no true relevance: it's editorial.
♥ 2
You can accumulate a lot of invasive data about people to try to tailor relevance to them, but that's not scientific. You're just (editorially) picking a KPI to optimise for — there's not proof that it's the right one, nor can there be one.
♥ 2
Replying to @null and @butr0s
Exactly!
Replying to @polx and @kkomaitis, @innovimax, @nytimes, @TimBL
That was in 2010 and it wasn't NYT but rather a company called Tynt. We talked about it at the time! lists.w3.org/Archives/Publi…
Replying to @mnot and @slightlylate
But things are getting hotter. We need to fix the browser revenue model while we still have the iOS moat for the Web.
♥ 1
Replying to @Chronotope
I think that the question you need to address is: whose labour is it when inferences are drawn? It's not a straightforward question!
♥ 2
Replying to @Chronotope and @MaxGendler
I hear you, but I think you're making your life hard by thinking about data. It's a weird commodity and it's hard to cast everything as labour. If I read an interesting article or watch a fun show, does it become labour because someone monetised the data?
♥ 2
There *are* things people do that should count as labour when someone monetises it: creating content for platforms (as we're doing now), providing quality filters (eg. liking), that kind of stuff. I think Nick Carr has written about that.
♥ 2
Replying to @Chronotope
I think that the term might be wrong. The event "Robin read this page" is hard to cast in terms of surplus, I think. It's more like an externality that can't be internalised. And that can be captured.
♥ 2
Replying to @Chronotope
We're pushed to spend more time, but are we pushed into more complex? I don't see it. If anything we're dealing with excessive simplification!
♥ 1
I agree with the assembly line view: we're dealing with a system of taylorist management. We're looking at the industrialisation of social interactions and private life. There is a whole slew of issues with this.
♥ 3
My concern is that looking at it from the angle of data as labour isn't all that helpful because data is weird enough that this leads you weird places that quickly don't make it clear who did what work.
♥ 2
I suspect that it might be a more promising lens to see this not as labour, but as a process of doing to private life and other aspects of society the same thing that was done to labour. In a sense, we need Luddism but for stuff that's not labour.
♥ 2
Replying to @Chronotope and @MaxGendler
I have Carr teed up too, we'll see what happens there!
You might be right, my worry is that we miss something by reusing that frame. It's definitely the same ideology of control, optimisation, and management at work, but it may manifest differently in new spaces.
♥ 1
Replying to @Chronotope
Oh, I agree with a ton here. I don't think that we're starting from zero (there's a ton of work on taylorism, optimisation, management, control that applies) and at least some of it is labour, and needs to be handled as such. That's already a big chunk to work with!
♥ 1
Replying to @Chronotope and @MaxGendler
Totally. I think that Surveillance Capitalism had solid research but I wasn't as convinced by its theorising.
♥ 1
Replying to @Chronotope and @humanpropensity
Re Zuboff: I think that the conversion from exhaust to surplus is a question of capturing a negative externality and making it positive (for someone — it's always for someone).
♥ 1
Replying to @TzviyaSiegman and @Tess, @jyasskin
That's very hard, it's a bit like favourite books or music, it changes every day! I will almost certainly disagree with myself quite violently tomorrow… But here are some:
For the general why is this important thing: bookshop.org/books/why-priv…
♥ 1
If she intends to work on privacy *compliance*, then understanding why most of it is fake is important: bookshop.org/books/industry…
For a theoretical understanding of how to think about privacy, I would recommend the intro and ch1 of this: cambridge.org/core/books/gov…. It's Nissenbaum's contextual integrity meets commons institutionalism — very powerful way to handle these questions.
♥ 2
Understanding how privacy is collective is key: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
♥ 1
A short intro to the basics of why privacy self-government can't possibly work: heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/pape…
I'll stop here. This is missing stuff from Cohen, Hartzog… I'm also not listing my stuff ;)
♥ 1
Replying to @BuggeErik and @johnnyryan, @Andreas_Schwab
This is indeed a very significant improvement! Thanks for al the hard work.
Do you think there's any hope of removing the consent exemption entirely? Allowing individuals to consent to anticompetitive advantage isn't great (even if this text is indeed much much better).
♥ 1
Replying to @jyasskin and @TzviyaSiegman, @Tess
I'll disagree on the "ick" factor, though. It's too easy to manipulate (in either direction, see the Science review above), including through motivated reasoning and relies too much on agenda-setting and processes of opinion formation. slate.com/technology/202…
♥ 1
Replying to @perigrin
Oh my, is it our time of year again!?
Replying to @random_walker
When entering a topic I go for breadth: follow all the interesting links or references, find all the people tweeting, etc. but stick mostly to abstracts and scanning. Patterns emerge: people who are all saying the same things or engaging in repeats of the same boring debate.
♥ 1
Also people who have a sharp point of view, a voice, an ability to explain will tend to stick out. I stick with those and iterate over time in smaller batches.
No silver bullet, but I think broad+shallow and trusting you'll see patterns helps.
♥ 2
Wondering how slowly I can read this.
♥ 5
Replying to @null and @NewsCEO
Thanks a lot David!
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
Oh yeah that one was brutal! I didn't take it too personally because Forrest Gump is my spirit animal and so I just wandered innocently into privacy, skipping past a lot of BS, but it still made me feel a lot of rage.
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
Patents! Yeah, been there too.
Is there a reason why Safari supports the `ping` attribute instead of doing the right thing for privacy?
♥ 5
Replying to @phobeo
Ha! I should be more careful 😁 I'm trying to figure out how data markets behave, people are treating them like normal markets but they're not. I just read an unpublished draft about externalities and it got me thinking. What are you looking into?
Replying to @null and @dansereduick, @TrialByTruth, @mitchawl01, @3ncr1pt3d, @mdennedy, @techwithtaz, @PrivacyMatters, @PrivaCat, @Archibfam, @TheABB, @hacks4pancakes, @cybergibbons, @SwiftOnSecurity, @LeaKissner, @ryancdotorg, @riptari, @SarahJamieLewis, @Fox0x01, @evacide, @kashhill, @MalwareTechBlog
Thank you, but please don't follow me for cybersecurity, I'm useless outside of privacy 😁
♥ 3
Replying to @null and @dansereduick, @TrialByTruth, @PrivaCat, @mitchawl01, @3ncr1pt3d, @mdennedy, @techwithtaz, @PrivacyMatters, @Archibfam, @TheABB, @hacks4pancakes, @cybergibbons, @SwiftOnSecurity, @LeaKissner, @ryancdotorg, @riptari, @SarahJamieLewis, @Fox0x01, @evacide, @kashhill, @MalwareTechBlog
Sure, I don't mean to deny any of that, I just wanted to caveat that anyone reading me specifically for infosec is going to be disappointed!
Replying to @null and @dansereduick, @TrialByTruth, @mitchawl01, @3ncr1pt3d, @mdennedy, @techwithtaz, @PrivacyMatters, @PrivaCat, @Archibfam, @TheABB, @hacks4pancakes, @cybergibbons, @SwiftOnSecurity, @LeaKissner, @ryancdotorg, @riptari, @SarahJamieLewis, @Fox0x01, @evacide, @kashhill, @MalwareTechBlog
We try to make computers suck less is how I see it. I've also heard dumpsterfireology. My team sometimes introduces itself as "imagining dystopian outcomes as a service" 😁
♥ 5
Replying to @null and @TrialByTruth, @dansereduick, @mitchawl01, @3ncr1pt3d, @mdennedy, @techwithtaz, @PrivacyMatters, @PrivaCat, @Archibfam, @TheABB, @hacks4pancakes, @cybergibbons, @SwiftOnSecurity, @LeaKissner, @ryancdotorg, @riptari, @SarahJamieLewis, @Fox0x01, @evacide, @kashhill, @MalwareTechBlog
That's exactly it!
Replying to @null and @TrialByTruth, @dansereduick, @mitchawl01, @3ncr1pt3d, @mdennedy, @techwithtaz, @PrivacyMatters, @PrivaCat, @Archibfam, @TheABB, @hacks4pancakes, @cybergibbons, @SwiftOnSecurity, @LeaKissner, @ryancdotorg, @riptari, @SarahJamieLewis, @Fox0x01, @evacide, @kashhill, @MalwareTechBlog
Oh, you still get invited to parties? 🤣
Seriously, I can't wait for conferences...
♥ 2
Replying to @kkomaitis and @daphnehk
They're not going to stop that of their own accord, though! If you have thoughts about how to make that happen...
Ew.
♥ 6
Replying to @npdoty and @johnwilander, @gsnedders
Thanks all, this is helpful. For context, I'm looking at `ping` as a good example of failure of a purported privacy-helping feature. It was argued as supporting opt outs, but the moment that opting out actually works then it goes away.
♥ 1
Replying to @kkomaitis and @daphnehk
I completely agree. I think that writing up a neutrality explainer of some sort geared towards techfolks might be worth doing!
Replying to @daphnehk and @kkomaitis
Yes — more generally, Twitter has been showing signs of developing an ethical spine, which is fascinating to watch.
♥ 1
Replying to @PrivaCat and @PrivacyMatters, @TrialByTruth, @dansereduick, @mitchawl01, @3ncr1pt3d, @mdennedy, @techwithtaz, @Archibfam, @TheABB, @hacks4pancakes, @cybergibbons, @SwiftOnSecurity, @LeaKissner, @ryancdotorg, @riptari, @SarahJamieLewis, @Fox0x01, @evacide, @kashhill, @MalwareTechBlog
Somehow I imagine my role as VP of Dystopian Outcomes requires me to float into meetings like a Dementor.
♥ 1
Replying to @RobertJBateman
“Google policy on a lot of these things is to get right up to the creepy line and then run, run as fast as possible, and keep running far past it.”
— Eric Schmidt, I think
♥ 3
Replying to @ruchowdh and @sivavaid
Currency is infrastructure. In order to operate properly, infrastructure needs an institutional arrangement attached to it in order to ensure the stability of its provision, enforce rules about how it can and can't be used, etc.
♥ 2
Using a state (or suprastate) as that institution isn't arbitrary: states are large enough to make decisions that usefully affect a currency and have very real ways of enforcing rules.
There are other currencies though, with more limited scope, like Starbucks points!
♥ 1
I think the useful question here is: do state institutions provide better or worse support for currencies than blockchain systems? I think a lot of the future of cryptocurrencies is predicated on having a good and honest answer to this.
♥ 1
The USD is backed by military might and oil. That's not great! But it's also attached to (insufficient) transparency mechanisms that afford some democratic control over it and prevent some bad uses. These things should not be discounted.
There's a lot of promise in crypto that we can get better governance, I presume including of currency, there. That's an interesting idea. But so far I've seen nothing that brings solid proof and doesn't come with significant downsides or unsolved problems!
♥ 1
Replying to @PrivaCat and @PrivacyMatters, @TrialByTruth, @dansereduick, @mitchawl01, @3ncr1pt3d, @mdennedy, @techwithtaz, @Archibfam, @TheABB, @hacks4pancakes, @cybergibbons, @SwiftOnSecurity, @LeaKissner, @ryancdotorg, @riptari, @SarahJamieLewis, @Fox0x01, @evacide, @kashhill, @MalwareTechBlog
Oh right, that famed "little black cloak" that goes with everything.
Replying to @ruchowdh and @sivavaid
No question about that, the state/currency relation has been contested since well before we had computers. Local alt currencies started in the early 20th, there are hundreds in France (SELs, I think "LETS" in English).
Replying to @semimetic
Do you smoke them?
This is a good illustration of what I mean when I say that Google Search is cognitively inferior: the amount of work you have to put into it to parse an actually useful result is staggering. In total time to find something, Google is a *lot* slower than the competition.
Quoting a tweet by @daiwaka ↗
♥ 77↺ 22
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
I guess that if you throw enough random crap on the screen, some of it has to be relevant!
♥ 1
Replying to @Neeva
Yes! I'm excited for the budding renaissance of innovation in search. There's a few things to fix to make this a more level playing field, but we can get there.
♥ 1
Replying to @devjpow
I hadn't, thanks, it's good!
The world just became an even more dangerous place.
♥ 41
Replying to @null and @LibSkrat
It's not my fault, it's a birthday present! My family just wants to watch the world burn.
♥ 3
Replying to @andreisambra
You're only concerned about that because you haven't noticed the built-in DISCO BALL on top of it.
♥ 1
Replying to @ruchowdh and @seanmmcdonald, @sivavaid
One advantage of corrupt states is that you know who the corrupt leaders are and they share a geography with the people. It's dangerous and far from foolproof, but it's there as a potential check.
I certainly don't disagree that we need much better non-state institutions for the digital world. I'm not sure that the current world of crypto is showing a credible way forward, though.
♥ 1
Masks may be gone from schools, but given the quasi-religious status of red tape in America I assume that I'll be filling these out every morning until my kids leave home.
♥ 1↺ 1
Replying to @null and @dansereduick
Fuck yeah!
Replying to @PrivacyMatters and @FusterGloria
Be careful what you wish for, Pat :-D
Il n'est peut-être pas trop tard pour comprendre que la souveraineté numérique serait mieux servie par le développement de bonnes idées que par l'imitation de mauvaises.
Quoting a tweet by @LauKaya ↗
♥ 18↺ 2
This guy wasn't allowed on the desk. Then I let him look out the window. Then I blinked and added a folded blanket so he could nap while I work. Now... he just spent 15min unfolding and readjusting the blanket so as to have more room.
I hope I can save some space for the laptop.
♥ 23↺ 1
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
Parce que comme le veut le dicton, parle à Moculus, Manatel est malade.
Replying to @mariafarrell
I'm bracing for the moment when the other cat sees this and wants a desk too.
♥ 1
Replying to @HopeFR3
Thank you, it's a lot of work and I appreciate the recognition.
Replying to @alextcone
The CMA has whispered to me in my sleep that you can only disco if the mirror is a floor AND a ceiling, and everyone needs to sing at the same time so people have a genuine choice to genuine innovation by being less important than genuine companies.
♥ 2
Replying to @Chronotope and @Ryanbarwick
Aha! I hadn't understood it that way, but totally agreed! It's the old portal theory: organise all the world's information your way, the less it makes sense the better the ads start to look!
♥ 1
I've been thinking about that a lot and I reckon we can fix it. Building a good index and building a good search UI are two very different things (as Google keeps demonstrating). The only reason to have them together is that the ads in the UI pay for the index. But...
Quoting a tweet by @swodinsky ↗
♥ 18↺ 2
...we can split that. There are many proposals for interoperability in social, which is useful but hard, we need to look at interoperability in search, which is a lot easier and comes with great benefits.
♥ 13
Competition in UI, built-in multihoming, integration into browsers and more, diversity of business models (ads or pay), build your own, merge results, no AMP, a return to media pluralism...
It's pure upside. We are *choosing* to live with shitty search by not doing this.
♥ 14
Replying to @Chronotope
I've been wondering about distributed indices but I don't know if it can be done with potentially adversarial participants?
♥ 2
Replying to @alexmilowski
Replying to @RobertJBateman and @brave
Yes it's one of those I like! There's a renaissance in search begging to happen, it's just being blocked you know how 😁
♥ 1
Replying to @Chronotope
Maybe I don't have a clear view of what you have in mind, but that's not the adversarial I have in mind. I'm worried about malicious actors deliberately decreasing the value.
Indexing has to be automated, there's too much drudgery. How do you only get good indexing?
♥ 3
Replying to @Chronotope and @mkramer
I love this model (and librarians)! So, this would need shared access to crawl (so as not to duplicate infrastructure, à la common crawl), an API to query federated indices, and ILP so people can be paid and infra costs covered. It's not crazy hard!
♥ 4
Replying to @Chronotope and @mkramer
Maybe not, but crawling can get a little intense, there's a bunch of ways to get it wrong. By sharing the crawl, you can set up your own index with some filtering params and a lambda. It could lower the barrier to entry.
♥ 1
Replying to @Chronotope and @mkramer
I considered that, but how do you prevent this from including super private stuff that shows up in page?
♥ 1
Replying to @Chronotope and @mkramer
I don't know, that would not be foolproof enough. Like, your name would be caught up with news content if you're signed in.
♥ 1
How about: sites *push* their content to be indexed, along with IP terms (to prevent the hostile mining that Google does but also independent repub), and Hyper agents are used to verify that real site content matches the index, to catch cheaters.
Plus, detection of interstitials, notification prompts, bad cookie banners, perf...
Replying to @braedon and @Chronotope
I think it's possible to be more distributed than Wikipedia, but I agree that providing infrastructure is key. You need a lot of common interfaces and the ability to develop bureaucracy where needed.
♥ 2
Replying to @kkomaitis
Kill it with fire 🔥
Replying to @kkomaitis
Don't forget the salt and the exorcism!
Man, imagine what we'll be able to do when privacy-preserving technologies like storing a few strings locally become more practical!
🤡
♥ 13↺ 1
DPC fines Facebook 0.01% of revenue, or about 1h20min for the year. You can bet that'll change the business model!
Quoting a tweet by @kkomaitis ↗
♥ 10↺ 2
Replying to @null and @blakereid
I can't believe the hardship, the DPC is out of control imposing such strict remedies.
Replying to @cyberflamingo
I don't think any company is better than Google at punishing users who don't behave the way they want. The internal docs of their privacy office show they justify that as done "for everyone" but poorly explained. Who knew the profit margins were so high on such public service!
♥ 2
This is very good.
buzzfeednews.com/article/elamin…
♥ 16↺ 3
Replying to @kkomaitis
I'm terrible at audio things and I'm on vacation but I'd love to know what they say!
A sobering view mentioned in passing in Against the Grain: the masses are only freed to the extent that elites have devised other means of control.
♥ 4↺ 2
Replying to @mariafarrell
Yes, and I couldn't stop thinking about how we could fix the damage from getting high on our own "civilising" supply for ~160 generations.
♥ 1
Replying to @ThoughtfulFund and @nybooks
When it shows up in the book, it's with an exclamation mark. "Politicide!" You can feel the glee. "Let's go kill the state!"
♥ 1
Replying to @luk_wlodarczyk and @Chronotope, @pbannist
Publishers have no control whatsoever over third-party code, and no one ever asks for permission.
♥ 6
Replying to @mnot
Thanks! This seems pretty hot indeed.
Replying to @mnot
Which part? The law of requisite variety is Ashby (which I misrecalled as Beer).
Replying to @alextcone and @kfranasz, @luk_wlodarczyk, @Chronotope, @pbannist
Yeah, we should make creatives declarative!
♥ 3
Replying to @mnot and @juanof9
But it's not even that. Tweets there are public. It mostly controls who can reply. It feels... half baked.
There is value in polycentric social media, but it seems unclear how/if platforms can build it.
♥ 2
Is there a useful concept for the intrinsic/contextual connectedness of a piece of information? Eg. "zgl" might just be connected to three Latin letters and to three-letter words, but "cat" has etymology, translations, many facts of the world, etc.
♥ 4
Replying to @masooga
I have! It's good. But I doubt it covers this, sadly!
Replying to @masooga
I used words as examples, but I'm looking for general connectedness. How many links can be made, inferences drawn, etc.
♥ 2
Replying to @dontcallmeDOM
Yes, but it's also related to computational properties in the sense that it may not be obvious what relations exist.
Maybe I should dig into ZKP since that's information without links.
Replying to @rishkoreddy
I think that it is the right area indeed! But I'm looking for something that applies to information (and is ideally formalised) rather than text.
Replying to @lutherlowe and @jasonfurman
Interoperability isn't technically trivial, building standards and making them work is, well, work. That changes nothing to the fact that the quoted statement is pure and utter bullshit, though.
Replying to @null and @blakereid, @lutherlowe, @jasonfurman
Perhaps the most crucial thing that that quote is missing is that, absent interoperability, we are missing out on all the integrations from third parties that would be way superior to the UI drivel we get from those two.
♥ 1
Replying to @null and @blakereid, @lutherlowe, @jasonfurman
Perhaps the most crucial thing that that quote is missing is that, absent interoperability, we are missing out on all the integrations from third parties that would be way superior to the UI drivel we get from those two.
Replying to @null and @blakereid, @lutherlowe, @jasonfurman
Yeah, the quote talks about integrated Google suite and iPhone.
Aaaand the Best Use of "In Principle" in a Tweet goes to @EU_EDPS.
Quoting a tweet by @EU_EDPS ↗
♥ 18↺ 1
Replying to @ethicistforhire
Belgian classic on a similar take en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Bites…
♥ 1
Replying to @Sophiebarel
Et encore, la photo ne montre pas qu'elle a un radiateur dans le dos et une mangeoire à oiseaux de l'autre côté de la vitre... Je crains sans cesse l'intervention des services sociaux.
Replying to @1Br0wn and @mariafarrell, @doctorow, @tforcworc, @johnnyryan, @DinaSrinivasan, @theplatformguy
Are you going? I'll be there!
♥ 2
Replying to @alexanderhanff and @RobertJBateman, @neilmrichards
Yes, you're making exactly my point. ePD is a rigid system that cares more about legal procedures than supporting personal autonomy. It assumes that informed consent can be copied from HSR without the infrastructure that makes it work there, like IRBs.
♥ 1
Replying to @alexanderhanff and @RobertJBateman, @neilmrichards
I know you disagree, Alexander. I just figured that if you decided to pick this up again months later you might have a new view.
The Charter is very aligned with my values as a European citizen, and aligns with the privacy model I seek to establish.
Notably, the difference between Art.3 that requires informed consent and Art.8 that has a much broader scope (including for consent itself) is IMHO particularly relevant. ePD treats the latter as if it were the former. I think that's a mistake.
Now if there is a revolution in behavioural science or HCI demonstrating rules for consent in the wild, under adversarial assumptions, that are actually guaranteed to support greater autonomy in real people instead of homo economicus I'll be the first to change my mind.
Replying to @BrettFrischmann
I think a lot of that rides on what you would consider to be a successful match between a knowledge resource and a person. Is it that the knowledge is high quality or truthful (for some function)? Or that the person accepts it as a good match? Are there different populations?
"The Uncanny Gaze of the Machine," wonderful @LMSacasas as always.
This triggered two related thoughts I'm still noodling over: fatalism, and the governance of inferences.
theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/the-uncanny-…
♥ 8↺ 5
I think that the specific flavour of despair we feel at being observed by a computer is fatalism. With thin mediation (eg. binoculars) there is or will be a human to argue with. With thick mediation, the categorisation has been set in motion and there is nothing we can do.
♥ 4
Relatedly, many problems digital privacy are issues with the governance of inferences.
In the specific (fascinating) research covered here, people carefully curated their online presence, are comfortable with employers checking it, but not using computerised means.
♥ 2
When we curate how we present, we know that others can draw further inferences. But there are rules to that: it's limited by human cognition, you can often appeal a mischaracterisation by talking to the person, you know how to course-correct... That's informal governance.
♥ 1
A computer inference however may draw upon massive data and complex correlations, you can't argue with the machine, and you can't see how to change. You have no say and governance is replaced with management. It's like data informed nudges vs manual ones.
♥ 2
There's a lot more to say on all this, but thanks for the inspiration @LMSacasas!
♥ 2
Get this: the "laptop" part of your home office actually disconnects and then it keeps working, you can use it like a smaller home office but elsewhere. It has a weird small screen but I'm kinda digging the experience!
♥ 18
I found this out because I'm on a "business trip." It's like work, except you don't do it at home. And the other people aren't cats or your children.
♥ 16
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
Proof! They chafe a bit but I'm enjoying the sound they make when you walk.
Replying to @cfiesler
This should be a browser extension.
Offering book vouchers instead of paying a freelancer €400 despite massive margins is a great summary of where scholarly publishing is as an industry. Not all oligopolies are tech companies!
Quoting a tweet by @EtheHerring ↗
♥ 13↺ 2
Replying to @null and @LibSkrat
My sympathies! In a previous life I spent quite some time working at a company that tried to make this whole thing not suck... Maybe I like pain, but sometimes I think of trying again!
Replying to @EtheHerring and @martinjanello
Agreed - I'm not an academic either (but former scholarly software dev) but we should 100% socialise scholarly publishing through a co-op commons!
♥ 4
Replying to @null and @podopie
AND a keyboard!
Bold.
♥ 15
Hey Brussels! I can't believe it's been 25 years since I left.
♥ 18
Replying to @innovimax and @fgeorges
J'y ai bien songé! Mais malheureusement je passe en coup de vent et je suis pris tout du long...
♥ 2
Replying to @fgeorges and @innovimax
Awwwww, ça m'aurait fait chaud au coeur jusqu'à l'aéroport!
♥ 1
Replying to @null and @MadronaCitizen
Delicious winter dish!
Replying to @Elibietti
I'd add that it's a myth that bureaucracy is an attribute of the public sector! Corporate bureaucracy is arguably even worse.
♥ 1
Replying to @AmeliasBrain
I know, that's the killer touch.
"Our democracies are at war with Putin, with the Chinese state, with Google, with Facebook, with Amazon. These are all monopolists." -Barry Lynn, #disruptedtimes22
♥ 4↺ 1
"Dominance with data is nonlinear." -Richard Baldwin at #disruptedtimes22.
This matches (shameless plug) berjon.com/competition-pr…
♥ 2↺ 3
Replying to @kkomaitis
Did you catch the whole speech?
@MonikaSchnitzer makes the great point that without competition in social media (and more generally in gatekeeping, notably search) you cannot protect freedom of speech. She calls upon the Commission to have a role to play in standards setting to help there. #disruptedtimes22
♥ 10↺ 2
Replying to @null and @ndw
In fairness, Zoom have to make money whereas Meet just needs to get some data.
♥ 1
"In the US, they seem to have budget for everything except properly funding regulators." -@ThomasPHI2 #disruptedtimes22
♥ 34↺ 10
Replying to @null and @ndw
Yeah, I completely get it, I'm not saying that you should pay, only underlining the unfairness of the situation for them.
@ThierryBreton plans to hire dozens of technologists to work on the DMA. I am very curious about what that will look like and how they will collaborate with standards groups. #disruptedtimes22
♥ 1
"Self-governance cannot be reconciled with monopoly power." -Jonathan Kanter, #disruptedtimes22
♥ 5↺ 2
@linakhanFTC draws a direct connection between surveillance business models and anticompetitive advantage, showing how easily-available data gives monopolies multiple advantages. It's heartening to hear such spot on clarity. #disruptedtimes22
♥ 3↺ 1
"Serial violations of privacy can enable companies to gain monopoly power." -@linakhanFTC #disruptedtimes22
♥ 24↺ 9
@MarietjeSchaake notes that almost everyone at a full-day conference of the world's best antitrust experts has talked about protecting democracy much more than about antitrust. It is worrying that we have let it get this bad. #disruptedtimes22
♥ 4↺ 3
I share her diagnosis and sense of urgency, but I do see pro-democracy forces rallying everywhere and I'm cautiously optimistic that we can free ourselves from tech monopolies.
♥ 1↺ 1
Periodic reminder that @DinaSrinivasan's paper using privacy to demonstrate Facebook’s monopoly power is awesome. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
#disruptedtimes22
♥ 18↺ 3
@joshgans explains that the proven decentralisation properties of the blockchain were wiped out by the layering of centralised interfaces.
That's why I prefer "capture resistance" to describe what we need to do. #disruptedtimes22
berjon.com/capture-resist…
♥ 9↺ 1
The issue is that decentralisation is a static property which attackers will eventually overwhelm, like an unpatched system: someone will find a way.
Capture resistance has to be active and relentless, it is the dynamic version of decentralisation.
♥ 2↺ 1
Replying to @seanmmcdonald
Absolutely! The maintenance aspect of capture resistance is key. There is no architecture such that it will *stay* decentralised if there's value in capturing it and it is not adaptively defended.
♥ 2↺ 1
Replying to @null and @happyborg, @seanmmcdonald
Maybe! I don't think it's necessarily hard, but it's necessarily constant. If the system is designed well, it's more like patch management, possibly.
Replying to @null and @happyborg, @seanmmcdonald
Sure, I agree in principle, I just think that "done well in the first place" is hard 😁
♥ 1