Sandy Hook review: anatomy of an American tragedy – and the obscenity of social media; The Guardian, March 13, 2022

Charles Kaiser , The Guardian; Sandy Hook review: anatomy of an American tragedy – and the obscenity of social media

"Those recommendations are the result of the infernal algorithms which are at the heart of the business models of Facebook and YouTube and are probably more responsible for the breakdown in civil society in the US and the world than anything else invented.

“We thought the internet would give us this accelerated society of science and information,” says Lenny Pozner, whose son Noah was one of the Sandy Hook victims. But “really, we’ve gone back to flat earth”."

Is Old Music Killing New Music?; The Atlantic, January 23, 2022

Ted Gioia, The Atlantic ; Is Old Music Killing New Music?

"A series of unfortunate events are conspiring to marginalize new music. The pandemic is one of these ugly facts, but hardly the only contributor to the growing crisis.

Consider these other trends:...

When a new song overcomes these obstacles and actually becomes a hit, the risk of copyright lawsuits is greater than ever before. The risks have increased enormously since the “Blurred Lines” jury decision of 2015, and the result is that additional cash gets transferred from today’s musicians to old (or deceased) artists.

Adding to the nightmare, dead musicians are now coming back to life in virtual form—via holograms and “deepfake” music—making it all the harder for young, living artists to compete in the marketplace."

The Most Popular J&J Vaccine Story On Facebook? A Conspiracy Theorist Posted It; NPR, April 15, 2021

Miles Parks, NPR ; The Most Popular J&J Vaccine Story On Facebook? A Conspiracy Theorist Posted It

""This is what I would call the perfect storm for misinformation," said Jennifer Granston at Zignal Labs, a media intelligence platform...

In most cases, the social media companies say they can't do much to respond in cases such as this, since people largely are sharing articles based on factual information, even if the commentary and subtext around the posting is meant to further false ideas.

"It's a really insidious problem," said Deen Freelon, a communications professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an interview with NPR last month. "The social media companies have taken a hard line against disinformation; they have not taken a similarly hard line against fallacies."

Many anti-vaccine activists have adopted this tactic as a way of getting around social media networks' policies designed to halt the spread of false information....

Often, misinformation peddlers with a specific agenda will fill in knowledge gaps with false information, knowing people are desperate for any information at all."

 

Congress and Trump Agreed They Want a National Privacy Law. It Is Nowhere in Sight.; The New York Times, October 1, 2019

David McCabe, The New York Times;

Congress and Trump Agreed They Want a National Privacy Law. It Is Nowhere in Sight.

"But after months of talks, a national privacy law is nowhere in sight...

The struggle to regulate consumer data shows how lawmakers have largely been unable to turn rage at Silicon Valley’s practices into concrete action... 

But the fervor to crack down on Silicon Valley has produced only a single new law, a bill to prevent sex trafficking online...

The United States has some laws that protect consumers’ privacy, like medical information collected by a doctor. But Congress has never set an overarching national standard for how most companies gather and use data. Regulators in Europe, in contrast, put strict new privacy rules into effect last year. 

Many tech companies built lucrative businesses off their users’ personal information, often by offering a “free” product in return.”

I Wanted to Stream Buffy, Angel, and Firefly for Free, But Not Like This; Gizmodo, November 30, 2018

Alex Cranz, Gizmodo; I Wanted to Stream Buffy, Angel, and Firefly for Free, But Not Like This

"This is TV that should be accessible to everyone, but Facebook Watch? Really? In order to watch Buffy take on a demon with a rocket launcher you have to be willing to sit there and stare at a video on the Facebook platform—the same place your cousin continues to post Daily Caller Trump videos and that friend from high school shares clips of a Tasty casserole made of butter, four tubes of biscuit dough, baked beans, and a hot dog? The price for complimentary access to three of the best shows produced is bargaining away your data and privacy?

No, thanks.

But Facebook is hoping we’ll all say yes, please. Facebook’s user growth in the U.S. notably hit a wall over the summer and it’s been trying to fix things. It’s also trying to make itself more “sticky,” so people stay on Facebook to get not just family and friend updates and memes, but also the streams and standard videos more commonly found on YouTube. Last year Facebook launched Watch, its YouTube competitor that was, from the start, filled with trash. But things have slowly improved, with the show Sorry for Your Loss gaining rave reviews."

Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free; The Guardian, September 13, 2018

George Monbiot, The Guardian; Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free

"Never underestimate the power of one determined person. What Carole Cadwalladr has done to Facebook and big data, and Edward Snowden has done to the state security complex, the young Kazakhstani scientist Alexandra Elbakyan has done to the multibillion-dollar industry that traps knowledge behind paywalls. Sci-Hub, her pirate web scraper service, has done more than any government to tackle one of the biggest rip-offs of the modern era: the capture of publicly funded research that should belong to us all. Everyone should be free to learn; knowledge should be disseminated as widely as possible. No one would publicly disagree with these sentiments. Yet governments and universities have allowed the big academic publishers to deny these rights. Academic publishing might sound like an obscure and fusty affair, but it uses one of the most ruthless and profitable business models of any industry."

[Documentary] Paywall: The Business of Scholarship, 2018

[Documentary] Paywall: The Business of Scholarship

"Paywall: The Business of Scholarship is a documentary which focuses on the need for open access to research and science, questions the rationale behind the $25.2 billion a year that flows into for-profit academic publishers, examines the 35-40% profit margin associated with the top academic publisher Elsevier and looks at how that profit margin is often greater than some of the most profitable tech companies like Apple, Facebook and Google.  

Staying true to the open access model: it is free to stream and download, for private or public use, and maintains the most open CC BY 4.0 Creative Commons designation to ensure anyone regardless of their social, financial or political background will have access.   

If you are interested in screening this film at your university, please fill out our contact form."

Post-Gazette Is Going Digital, At Least On Some Days, With An Ad Campaign That Is Raising Eyebrows; KDKA 2 CBS Pittsburgh, August 22, 2018

Jon Delano, KDKA 2 CBS Pittsburgh; Post-Gazette Is Going Digital, At Least On Some Days, With An Ad Campaign That Is Raising Eyebrows

"The PG has billboards up around town and television ads on-air, featuring those who say they will never go digital.

One TV advertisement: “PGe and PG NewsSlide, who the bleep needs them. Last time I went on line they tried to track my cookies. They’ll never get my cookie recipe.” 

Another TV advertisement: “Now they’re telling me PG is going digital. They can stick their digital. I’m not doing that.” 

“It’s a little insensitive to the readers who really are connected to print, who really depend on print,” said [Andrew] Conte [director of Point Park University’s Center for Media Innovation].

Not true, says [Allan] Block [chairman of Block Communications that owns the PG]."

No, Mark Zuckerberg, we’re not really in control of our data; The Washington Post, April 12, 2018

Geoffrey A. Fowler, The Washington Post; No, Mark Zuckerberg, we’re not really in control of our data

"If Facebook wanted us to be in control of our data, it could put at the top of its home page a button that says “stop tracking me everywhere.” (I’d even pay a subscription fee for it.) There would be another one that says “reset my data.” But the reality is, if we all used those tools, it would probably be a disaster for Facebook’s business, which is based on having the largest pile of data to target its ads. Zuckerberg doesn’t want to talk about how his business is inseparable from its surveillance.

During one exchange, Rep. Anna G. Eshoo asked a question that cut to the core of the matter: “Are you willing to change your business model in the interest of protecting individual privacy?”

Zuckerberg replied, “I'm not sure what that means.”

I think he did."

Facebook Is Not the Problem. Lax Privacy Rules Are.; The New York Times, April 1, 2018

The Editorial Board, The New York Times; Facebook Is Not the Problem. Lax Privacy Rules Are.

"Many businesses will struggle to comply with the European Union’s new rules, and officials in member countries will have a hard time enforcing it consistently. “We will have a learning curve,” said Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, who heads France’s privacy regulator, the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés. “We will have to adjust.”

But it is increasingly clear that businesses will figure out how to live with and make money under tougher privacy rules. Some companies are also planning to apply some or all of the data protection requirements to all of their customers, not just Europeans. And other countries have or are considering adopting similar rules. Throughout history, meatpackers, credit card companies, automakers and other businesses resisted regulations, arguing they would be ruined by them. Yet, regulations have actually benefited many industries by boosting demand for products that consumers know meet certain standards.

Facebook and other internet companies fear privacy regulations, but they ought not to. Strong rules could be good for them as well as for consumers."

The Most Important Self-Driving Car Announcement Yet; The Atlantic, March 28, 2018

Alexis C. Madrigal, The Atlantic; The Most Important Self-Driving Car Announcement Yet

"With Waymo’s most recent announcement, now is the time to think through these larger questions. They are bigger and harder because they cannot be answered by technological proof. They involve power—Alphabet’s power, the power of labor, the power of local governments to control their jurisdictions.

Let’s assume Waymo is wildly successful. They take over the ride-sharing market from human drivers in both ride-hailing companies and traditional taxicabs. In so doing, they’ll complete the shift in consumer spending on car transportation from thousands of taxicab drivers across thousands of cities to one technology company. It’s not unlike thousands of newspapers making money from classifieds and then a couple of technology companies taking all of that revenue. It’s certainly easier to buy stuff from other people now, but local journalism is in a hopeless business situation."

Tech's biggest companies are spreading conspiracy theories. Again.; CNN, February 21, 2018

Seth Fiegerman, CNN; Tech's biggest companies are spreading conspiracy theories. Again.

"To use Silicon Valley's preferred parlance, it's now hard to escape the conclusion that the spreading of misinformation and hoaxes is a feature, not a bug, of social media platforms -- and their business models.

Facebook and Google built incredibly profitable businesses by serving content they don't pay for or vet to billions of users, with ads placed against that content. The platforms developed better and better targeting to buoy their ad businesses, but not necessarily better content moderation to buoy user discourse."

How to Protect Your Privacy as More Apps Harvest Your Data; New York Times, May 1, 2017

Brian X. Chen, New York Times; How to Protect Your Privacy as More Apps Harvest Your Data

"Opt out for good

Deleting your app from your phone or computer often isn’t enough. You’ll remove data from the device itself, but not from the company’s servers.

If you’ve lost trust in a company, make the cleanest break possible: Delete your account. In the case of an app like Uber, for example, you can submit a request on the company’s website to have your account deleted. Similarly, with Unroll.me, you can log in to the site and click through the settings to delete your account.

Even after doing that, you will have to reconcile with the idea that the company will probably hold on to the information you have already shared.

“Data you’ve provided to the service as part of using the service is data that they can store and continue to use,” Ms. Sandvik said. “It falls under the terms of service.”

Fixation on Fake News Overshadows Waning Trust in Real Reporting; New York Times, 11/18/16

John Herrman, New York Times; Fixation on Fake News Overshadows Waning Trust in Real Reporting:

"Media companies have spent years looking to Facebook, waiting for the company to present a solution to their mounting business concerns despite, or perhaps because of, its being credited with causing those concerns. Some have come to the realization that this was mistaken, even absurd. Those who expect the operator of the dominant media ecosystem of our time, in response to getting caught promoting lies, to suddenly return authority to the companies it has superseded are in for a similar surprise."

Yes, the News Can Survive the Newspaper; New York Times, 9/4/16

Jim Rutenberg, New York Times; Yes, the News Can Survive the Newspaper:

"In this case, as the ad dollars that have long financed journalism vaporize into the electronic ether, you don’t know with any certainty that the best services that newspapers have provided — holding public officials to account, rooting out corruption — will live on.

If anything, today’s “efficiencies” may even set readers back by pumping out lowest-common-denominator nonsense or, at worst, disinformation.

Just look at what happened last week after that Goliath of the digital transformation, Facebook, pared back the team of “curators” and copy editors who oversaw the selection process for its “Trending Topics” feed. Instead, it gave more control over to an algorithm...

The Facebook experience wasn’t all that far off from the doomsday scenario John Oliver recently envisioned on his HBO show “Last Week Tonight.”...

Know-nothing press haters may say that news organizations are going out of business because the public is shunning them, but that’s not the case at all. Through online exposure, newspapers are reaching more people than ever. The problem is how they make money. Circulation for physical newspapers is declining, and so is print advertising; digital ads remain far less profitable. The trick is finding a way to make up the lost revenue."

Britain’s Paper Tigers; New York Times, 8/10/16

Stig Abell, New York Times; Britain’s Paper Tigers:

"The Sun can still call an election correctly, can still elicit outrage and comment. The Mirror, The Sun and The Mail hope to turn their vast online audiences into a profitable business model.

And there is a gradual resurgence of a willingness to pay for quality. The Times and The Sunday Times, paywalled and protected, have become profitable perhaps for the first time in history. Paywalls — once seen as an embodiment of Luddism in the giddy world of the free internet — now seem essential to the survival of professional writing.

Yet there has never been a more hostile environment to journalism than exists today, and not only in economic terms. The democratizing effect of social media, a potentially healthful development, has also given rise to a cynicism directed toward the mainstream media. This is all part of a new angriness in politics."

Sydney Morning Herald Faces Uncertain Print Future in Australia; New York Times, 8/17/16

Keith Bradsher and Michelle Innis, New York Times; Sydney Morning Herald Faces Uncertain Print Future in Australia:

[Post #1,500, since starting this Ethics blog in 2010] "Kate McClymont, 58, has been breaking news at The Sydney Morning Herald for decades. One of the newspaper’s marquee journalists, Ms. McClymont appears in the paper’s ads.

“We have been holding the powerful in this city to account for a long time,” Ms. McClymont said.

Most recently, she pursued a state government minister, Eddie Obeid, uncovering how his private businesses were improperly benefiting from his public role. Mr. Obeid was found guilty in June of misusing his public office. He will soon face a second court case over mining leases he obtained from the state government.

“We have shone a light where crooks would prefer places remained dark,” Ms. McClymont said. “I hate the idea of people getting away with anything.”

“It is bad for democracy,” she added, “if this voice is diminished in any way.”"

John Oliver’s newspaper rant hits a nerve: “We’ve watched it being not-so-slowly destroyed by forces beyond our control”; Salon, 8/10/16

Scott Timberg, Salon; John Oliver’s newspaper rant hits a nerve: “We’ve watched it being not-so-slowly destroyed by forces beyond our control” :

"So part of what’s interesting about Oliver’s bit — which looked at both the causes of the decline as well as the effects, with his usual combination of hyperventilating moralism and comic exaggeration — is that some seem frustrated with it. And not just people who hate the press, but people who value what it does.

The most visible of these criticisms so far has come from the president of the Newspaper Association of America, who praised the segment’s opening. “But making fun of experiments,” David Chavern wrote, “and pining away for days when classified ads and near-monopolistic positions in local ad markets funded journalism is pointless and ultimately harmful.”

Sullivan, who was once the executive editor of the Buffalo News and the public editor of the New York Times, hit back sharply in a Post piece:

Actually, no. What Oliver did was precisely nail everything that’s been happening in the industry that Chavern represents: The shrinking staffs, the abandonment of important beats, the love of click bait over substance, the deadly loss of ad revenue, the truly bad ideas that have come to the surface out of desperation, the persistent failures to serve the reading public."

Journalism: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO); HBO via YouTube, 8/7/16

HBO via YouTube; Journalism: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) :

"The newspaper industry is suffering. That’s bad news for journalists — both real and fictional."

Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge; Science Alert, 2/12/16

Fiona MacDonald, Science Alert; Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge:

"A researcher in Russia has made more than 48 million journal articles - almost every single peer-reviewed paper every published - freely available online. And she's now refusing to shut the site down, despite a court injunction and a lawsuit from Elsevier, one of the world's biggest publishers.

For those of you who aren't already using it, the site in question is Sci-Hub, and it's sort of like a Pirate Bay of the science world. It was established in 2011 by neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan, who was frustrated that she couldn't afford to access the articles needed for her research, and it's since gone viral, with hundreds of thousands of papers being downloaded daily. But at the end of last year, the site was ordered to be taken down by a New York district court - a ruling that Elbakyan has decided to fight, triggering a debate over who really owns science."