A highly fascinating video of the tactics the Hong Kong protesters use.
Nice contrast between rigidity on the one hand, and agility on the other, whereby the latter no longer lets the former set the terms of engagement.
(ht Earl Mardle)
This is a good reminder to finally read Beautiful Trouble
Via Jeannie McGeehan, an interesting read. How do you inoculate against online hate speech.
The paper, “Hidden resilience and adaptive dynamics of the global online hate ecology,” explores how hate groups organize on Facebook and Russian social network VKontakte — and how they resurrect themselves after platforms ban them.
Since the summer I am holding three questions that are related. They all concern what role machine learning and AI could fulfil for an individual or an everyday setting. Everyman’s AI, so to speak.
The first question is a basic one, looking at your house, and immediate surroundings:
1: What autonomous things would be useful in the home, or your immediate neighbourhood?
The second question is more group and community oriented one:
2: What use can machine learning have for civic technology (tech that fosters citizen’s ability to do things together, to engage, participate, and foster community)?
The third question is perhaps more a literary one, an invitation to explore, to fantasise:
3 What would an “AI in the wall” of your home be like? What would it do, want to do? What would you have it do?
(I came across an ‘AI in the wall’ in a book once, but it resided in the walls of a pub. Or rather it ran the pub. It being a public place allowed it to interact in many ways in parallel, so as to not get bored)
Early September the Copenhagen Techfestival will take place for the third time. It brings over 20.000 people together for over 200 events during three days, to together explore, discuss and create the future of technology.
Having had to decline invitations for the first two events, I’m joining the Techfestival 150 during this year’s event. Thank you to the organisers for their tenacity in asking me for the third year in a row. This time I was better prepared, having blocked my calendar as soon as the dates were announced.
The Copenhagen Techfestival 150 is a thinktank of 150 people that convenes during the festival. It created the The Copenhagen Letter in 2017, the Copenhagen Catalog in 2018, and this year the aim is to formulate the Copenhagen Pledge, a set of guidelines for anyone working in or with tech to commit to.
It’s been a good while since I was in Copenhagen last, I had wanted to join the previous Techfestivals already, so I look forward to getting back to CPH and fully submerge myself in the Techfestival (described to me as ‘Reboot at scale’).
Much easier than regulating to break up Facebook, just regulate to force them to make an API for us to get data in and out. We can break them up ourselves once we have that. (source)
Neil is right, an effective way to break-up big tech monopolies is requiring they have API‘s. (Much like key government data sets across the EU will be required to have API’s from 2021 based on the 2019 PSI Directive)
A monopolistic platform that has an API will be effectively broken up by its users and by app builders as they will interact with bits and pieces from various platforms as they see fit.
That FB and Twitter e.g. have been on a path over steadily reducing public API access over time shows you the truth of that.
(Adversarial) interoperability and standards are key elements in avoiding vendor lock-ins. This is true for ‘smart home’ appliance silos just as much as for webservices.
If you don’t have an API you’re not a platform (platforms are after all bases to build/grow things on, if you stunt that ability you’re not a platform). If you’re not a platform, you’re fully liable for your user uploaded content. How’s that for a trade-off?
All platforms should be required to join the API family…
Picture taken earlier this month at La Folie de Finfarine in Poiroux
This from Wendy Grossman hits the nail quite precisely on its head.
“The problem isn’t privacy,” the cryptography pioneer Whitfield Diffie said recently. “It’s corporate malfeasance.”
This is obviously right. Viewed that way, when data profiteers claim that “privacy is no longer a social norm”, as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg did in 2010, the correct response is not to argue about privacy settings or plead with users to think again, but to find out if they’ve broken the law.
I think I need to make this into a slide for my stock slide deck. It’s also I think why the GDPR focuses on data protection and the basis for data usage, not on privacy as such.
(Do add Wendy Grossman’s blog net.wars to your feedreader.)