It Is Official: Big Tech Outfits Are Empires
August 23, 2021
Who knew? The Electronic Frontier Foundation revealed a factoid which is designed to shock. My position has been that big tech outfits operate like countries. I was wrong. The FAANG-type operations are empires. I stand corrected.
I learned this in “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Platforms Want To Be Utilities, Self-Govern Like Empires.” The write up asserts:
The tech giants argue that they are entitled to run their businesses largely as they see fit: if you don’t like the house rules, just take your business elsewhere.
The write up omits that FAANG-type outfits are not harming the consumer. Plus these organizations operate in accordance with an invisible hand. (I like science fiction, don’t you.)
The problem is that we are now decades into the digital revolution, and the EFF like some other entities are beginning to realize that flows of digital information reconstitute the Great Chain of Being. At the top of the chain are the FAANG-type operations.
At the bottom are the thumbtypers. In the middle, those who are unable to ascend and unwilling to become data serfs are experts like those at the EFF.
“Fixes” are the way forward. From my point of view, the problems have been fixed when those lower in the chain complain, upgrade to a new mobile device, suck down some TikToks, and chill with “content.”
The future has arrived, and it is quite difficult to change the status quo and probably an Afghanistanian task to alter the near-term future.
Empires, not countries. Sounds about right.
Stephen E Arnold, August 23, 2021
Stopping Disinformation At The Systemic Level
August 19, 2021
Disinformation has been a problem since humans created the first conspiracy theory, but the spread has gotten worse in the past view years during Trump’s administration and the pandemic. TechDirt describes how it is more difficult to stop the disinformation spread in the article: “Disentangling Disinformation: Not As Easy As It Looks.” Protestors are urging Facebook to ban disinformation super spreaders and rightly so.
Disinformation about COVID-19 comes from a limited number of Facebook accounts as well as WhatsApp groups, news programs, local communities, and other social media platforms. Facebook does ban misinformation about COVID-19, but the company does not enforce its own rules. It is easy to identify the misinformation super spreaders, it is difficult to stop them. Disinformation has infected the Internet on a systemic level and it is hard to target.
It is hard to decide what actually qualifies as misinformation. What is real deemed hard fact and conspiracy theories changes all the time. For example, homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness and the chronic illness ME/CFS was only deemed recently deemed real. Another part of the issue is that giving authorities power to determine what is disinformation has downsides, because authorities do not always agree with the public about what is truthful. It is also extremely difficult to enforce rules about disinformation:
“We know that enforcing terms of service and community standards is a difficult task even for the most resourced, even for those with the best of intentions—like, say, a well-respected, well-funded German newspaper. But if a newspaper, with layers of editors, doesn’t always get it right, how can content moderators—who by all accounts are low-wage workers who must moderate a certain amount of content per hour—be expected to do so? And more to the point, how can we expect automated technologies—which already make a staggering amount of errors in moderation—to get it right?”
In other words, companies can do better jobs to moderate disinformation, but it is nearly an impossible task. Misinformation spreads around the globe in multiple languages and there is not an easy, universal way to stop everything. It is even worse when good content gets lost because of misinformation.
Whitney Grace, August 19, 2021
Biased? Abso-Fricken-Lutely
August 16, 2021
To be human is to be biased. Call it a DNA thing or blame it on a virus from a pangolin. In the distant past, few people cared about biases. Do you think those homogeneous nation states emerged because some people just wanted to invent the biathlon?
There’s a reasonably good run down of biases in A Handy Guide to Cognitive Biases: Short Cuts. One is able to scan bi8ases by an alphabetical list (a bit of a rarity these days) or by category.
The individual level of biases may give some heartburn; for example, the base rate neglect fallacy. The examples are familiar to some of the people with whom I have worked over the years. These clear thinkers misjudge the probability of an event by ignoring background information. I would use the phrase “ignoring context,” but I defer to the team which aggregated and assembled the online site.
Worth a look. Will most people absorb the info and adjust? Will the mystery of Covid’s origin be resolved in a definitive, verifiable way? Yeah, maybe.
Stephen E Arnold, August 16, 2021
Europe: Privacy Footnote
August 11, 2021
If you are not familiar with Chatcontrol, there’s a mostly useful list of resources on the Digital Human Rights blog. The article “Messaging and Chat Control” offers some context as well as a foreshadowing of the possible trajectory of this EU initiative.
The Chatcontrol legislation meshes with Apple’s recent statement that it would be more proactive and transparent about its monitoring activity. You can get a sense of this action in “Expanded Protections for Children.”
A schism exists between those who want to move whatever content is of interest freely. On the other side of the gap are those who want to put controls on digital content flow.
Observations I noted on a flight home from Washington, DC Monday, August 10, 2021, included:
- Digital content flows accelerate and facilitate some unpleasant facets of human behavior. Vendors have done little since the dawn of “online” to manage corrosive bits. Is this now a surprise that after 50 years, elected officials are trying to take action.
- The failure to regulate has been a result of generate misunderstanding of the nature of unfettered digital information flows. As I have pointed out, digital content works exactly like glass beads propelled at a rusted fender. Once the rust is gone, keeping the nozzle aimed at the fender blasts the fender away as well. Hence, we have the social fabric in its present and rapidly deteriorating condition.
- One property of digital information is that those with expertise in digital information can innovate. Thus, there will be workarounds. Some of these will be deployed more rapidly than the filtering and control mechanisms can be updated. I point this out because once a control system is imposed, it becomes increasingly difficult and expensive to keep in tip top shape.
Net net: China has been the pace-setter in this approach to digital information. How easy is it to sketch the trajectory of these long-overdue actions? That’s an interesting question to ponder after a half century to stumble into the school room with a mobile phone and a perception that the online equipped person is a wizard.
Stephen E Arnold, August 11, 2021
A Tiny Idea: Is a New Governmental Thought Shaper Emerging?
August 11, 2021
I read “China’s Top Propaganda Agencies Want to Limit the Role of Algorithms in Distributing Online Content.” What an interesting idea. De-algorithm certain Fancy Dan smart software. Make a human or humanoids responsible for what gets distributed online. Laws apparently are not getting throiugh to the smart software used for certain technology publishing functions. The fix, according to the article, is:
China’s top state propaganda organs, which decide what people can read and watch in the country, have jointly urged better “culture and art reviews” in China partly by limiting the role of algorithms in content distribution, a policy move that could translate into higher compliance costs for online content providers such as ByteDance and Tencent Holdings. The policy guidelines from the Central Propaganda Department of the Communist Party, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the State Administration of Radio and Television as well as the China Federation of Literary and Art Circles and Chinese Writers Association, the two state-backed bodies for state-approved artists and authors, mark the latest effort by Beijing to align online content with the state’s agenda and to rein in the role of capital and technology in shaping the country’s minds and mainstream views.
The value of putting a human or humanoids in the target zone is an explicit acknowledgement that “gee, I’m sorry” and “our algorithms are just so advanced my team does not know what those numerical recipes are doing” will not fly or get to the airport.
I am not too interested in the impact of these rules in the Middle Kingdom. What I want to track is how these rules diffuse to nation states which are counting on a big time rail link or money to fund Chinese partners’ projects.
Net net: Chinese government agencies, where monitoring and internal checks and balances are an art form, possibly will make use of interesting algorithms. Commercial enterprises and organizations grousing about China’s rules and regulations will have fewer degrees of freeedom. Maybe no freedom at all. Ideas may not be moving from the US East Coast and the West Coast. Big ideas like clipping algorithmic wings are building in China and heading out. Will the idea catch on?
Stephen E Arnold, August 11, 2021
Online Anonymity: Maybe a Less Than Stellar Idea
July 20, 2021
On one hand, there is a veritable industrial revolution in identifying, tracking, and pinpointing online users. On the other hand, there is the confection of online anonymity. The idea is that by obfuscation, using a fake name, or hijacking an account set up for one’s 75 year old spinster aunt — a person can be anonymous. And what fun some can have when their online actions are obfuscated either by cleverness, Tor cartwheels, and more sophisticated methods using free email and “trial” cloud accounts. I am not a big fan of online anonymity for three reasons:
- Online makes it easy for a person to listen to one’s internal demons’ chatter and do incredibly inappropriate things. Anonymity and online, in my opinion, are a bit like reverting to 11 year old thinking often with an adult’s suppressed perceptions and assumptions about what’s okay and what’s not okay.
- Having a verified identity linked to an online action imposes social constraints. The method may not be the same as a small town watching the actions of frisky teens and intervening or telling a parent at the grocery that their progeny was making life tough for the small kid with glasses who was studying Lepidoptera.
- Individuals doing inappropriate things are often exposed, discovered, or revealed by friends, spouses angry about a failure to take out the garbage, or a small investigative team trying to figure out who spray painted the doors of a religious institution.
When I read “Abolishing Online Anonymity Won’t Tackle the Underlying Problems of Racist Abuse.” I agree. The write up states:
There is an argument that by forcing people to reveal themselves publicly, or giving the platforms access to their identities, they will be “held accountable” for what they write and say on the internet. Though the intentions behind this are understandable, I believe that ID verification proposals are shortsighted. They will give more power to tech companies who already don’t do enough to enforce their existing community guidelines to protect vulnerable users, and, crucially, do little to address the underlying issues that render racial harassment and abuse so ubiquitous.
The observation is on the money.
I would push back a little. Limiting online use to those who verify their identity may curtail some of the crazier behaviors online. At this time, fractious behavior is the norm. Continuous division of cultural norms, common courtesies, and routine interactions destroys.
My thought is that changing the anonymity to real identity might curtail some of the behavior online systems enable.
Stephen E Arnold, July 20, 2021
A Good Question and an Obvious Answer: Maybe Traffic and Money?
July 19, 2021
I read “Euro 2020: Why Is It So Difficult to Track Down Racist Trolls and Remove Hateful Messages on Social Media?” The write up expresses understandable concern about the use of social media to criticize athletes. Some athletes have magnetism and sponsors want to use that “pull” to sell products and services. I remember a technology conference which featured a former football quarterback who explained how to succeed. He did not reference the athletic expertise of a former high school science club member and officer. As I recall, the pitch was working hard, fighting (!), and a overcoming a coach calling a certain athlete (me, for example) a “fat slug.” Relevant to innovating in online databases? Yes, truly inspirational and an anecdote from the mists of time.
The write up frames its concern this way about derogatory social media “posts”:
Over a quarter of the comments were sent from anonymous private accounts with no posts of their own. But identifying perpetrators of online hate is just one part of the problem.
And the real “problem”? The article states:
It’s impossible to discover through open-source techniques that an account is being operated from a particular country.
Maybe.
Referencing Instagram (a Facebook property), the Sky story notes:
Other users may anonymise their existing accounts so that the comments they post are not traceable to them in the offline world.
Okay, automated systems with smart software don’t do the job. Will another government bill in the UK help.
The write up does everything but comment about the obvious; for example, my view is that online accounts must be linked to a human and verified before posts are permitted.
The smart software thing, the government law thing, and the humans making decision thing, are not particularly efficacious. Why? The online systems permit — if not encourage — anonymity because money maybe? That’s a question for the Sky Data and Forensics team. It is:
a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
Okay.
Stephen E Arnold, July 19, 2021
Experts in Information Experience Real Life Entropy: Not Much Fun, Right?
July 8, 2021
“The Internet Is Rotting” is 6,000 words which suggest that the end of “knowledge” is nigh. I am not sure “rotting” is the word I would have used. The subtitle for the write up is quite dramatic:
Too much has been lost already. The glue that holds humanity’s knowledge together is coming undone.
Online has been blasting bits since the late 1960s. A half century later “rot” is evident to the experts who recognize a problem and can provide mostly interesting examples. Here’s one:
This absence of central control, or even easy central monitoring, has long been celebrated as an instrument of grassroots democracy and freedom. It’s not trivial to censor a network as organic and decentralized as the internet. But more recently, these features have been understood to facilitate vectors for individual harassment and societal destabilization, with no easy gating points through which to remove or label malicious work not under the umbrellas of the major social-media platforms, or to quickly identify their sources.
Yep, the example is pretty much everything.
Several observations:
- Say “Hi” to what happens when “glue” fails in its basic job
- The elimination of gatekeepers is like pulling rods from a nuclear core. Stuff heats quickly, melts, burns, and eventually decides to take a trip to Entropy World
- The Internet is a manisfestation of online and is, therefore, one smaller component of the datasphere
- You can’t go home again.
One of the most visible aspects of digitalization is disintermediation. The gatekeepers are sent packing. Everyone’s an expert in online search, including those who think that Google delivers high value, accurate, unbiased information to faculty and students 24×7.
Paper outputs leave “trails.” These trails can be followed, whether by Dr. Gene Garfield’s link analysis method or by forensic investigators looking at cancelled checks. Now try to find a hard copy of a technical journal in a public library or an institution of higher education. Now try to locate the backfiles. With the shift to digital there are some challenges in the Pathfinder approach:
- Gatekeepers cannot be trusted
- Digital content providers can filter content, delete it, or not include items
- Users cannot determine what information is on point what is baloney
- Institutional structures which once assumed responsibility for accuracy have become less stable than the basements of Florida high rises
- Government entities struggle to perform basic functions. Hey, the IRS with its whizzy computer systems is years behind in processing tax returns.
- Kick back has become the optimal mode for learning. Forget that “hot” approach: Note taking, old fashioned lectures, reading books printed on paper, and writing in longhand.
There is a cultural shift which has occurred. This is not a gerund like rotting. Entropy can be calculated. The math I have done on the back of a 4×6 index card produces one of those cute equations which articular an infinitesimal approach to the construction of linear models. The outputs of these models will be evidence of racing toward zero.
It won’t take 50 years to get a lot closer to the x axis.
Stephen E Arnold, July 8, 2021
Click Rattling: Tech Giants Explain Their Reality to China
July 6, 2021
Will this end well? Do US technology giants — Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and others — believe that operating in concert will alter Chinese policy? “American Internet Giants Hit Back at Hong Kong Doxxing Law” reports that “an industry group representing the largest American Internet companies warned Hong Kong’s government that changes to the city’s data-protection laws could impact companies’ ability to provide services in the city.” [You will have to pay up to read this Gray Lady confection, gentle reader.]
What? “Warn”, “could”, “data protection.”
I must be missing something. Isn’t China is a nation state? Its citizens and companies wishing to operate within its boundaries must conform to its rules and regulations or interesting things happen; for example, mobile death vans and a variation on adult day care.
It’s great that there is a Singapore outfit called the Asia Internet Coalition. I think that collaboration among largely unregulated, money centric US corporations is able to take place for such noble purposes as selling ads. However, what nuance of “China is a nation state” eludes this association and its US technology company members?
The write up reports: Shortly after the law was enacted, Facebook, Google and Twitter all said they had suspended responding to data requests from the Hong Kong authorities. Last month, police officers in the city invoked the law to briefly pull down a website that called for unity among expatriate Hong Kongers in the pro-democracy movement.
Will a refusal to respond to a nation state’s requests constitute behavior deemed illegal or seditious by a country like China?
If this news report is on the money, my hunch hypothesis is that some American technology giants are legends in their own minds. They seem to be acting as if they were real countries, just minus the fungible apparatuses of a country. I have a suggestion. Why doesn’t the Asia Internet Coalition invite the top 12 senior managers of those big US companies to a cruise up the Yangtze? The execs can tour the Shanghai Qingpu Prison and check out the abandoned cities of China’s “forced resettlement” policy.
Issue some warnings in a big news conference before boarding the boat. Warn? Hey, great idea. Issue a news release too. Post on social media. Tweet pictures of interesting structures.
Stephen E Arnold, July 6, 2021`
No Internet? No Problem. Well, Maybe a Small Almost Insignificant Hurdle
June 11, 2021
The Internet is an essential tool for modern life, but not everyone in the United States has ready access to broadband services. The US is one of the world’s most developed countries, so how many of its citizens cannot get online? In 2020, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), estimated that 14.5 million Americans lacked Internet access, however, that number is no where near the truth.
The Daily Dot investigates the real amount in the article: “New Study Shows Digital Divide Is Much Worse Than The Government Says It Is.” BroadbandNow released a report that stated 42 million Americans were unable to access broadband services. The digital divide was a huge concern during the COVID pandemic as remote workers and students were forced to work in fast food parking lots and other locations with free Wi-Fi. BroadbandNow calculated 42 million by:
“BroadbandNow manually checked more than 58,000 addresses using “check availability” tools from 11 large internet service providers (ISPs) to see whether wired or fixed wireless service was available. The addresses were from areas that at least one of those 11 ISPs offered service according to a form the FCC has where ISPs self-report whether broadband is being served
That form, Form 477, has been criticized in the past because if an ISP offers service to just one home in a Census block, the FCC counts that entire area as having access from that provider. That is an issue because many Census blocks can be enormous, and counting one person as having access as serving an entire area leads to over-reporting of availability.”
The report also discovered that all types of Internet sources were over reported on broadband maps. The maps used to determine broadband access are known to contain errors. The FCC plans to design a new system to more accurately measure broadband needs in the US.
Congress passed the “Broadband DATA Act” in March 2020 and funds for broadband mapping were included in a COVID relief bill. Despite the need for Internet services, Congress continues to argue and waste taxpayer money over the last administration.
Whitney Grace, June 11, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
