Skip to main content

Home/ QN2019/ Group items tagged app

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Aurialie Jublin

The pregnancy-tracking app Ovia lets women record their most sensitive data for themsel... - 0 views

  • But someone else was regularly checking in, too: her employer, which paid to gain access to the intimate details of its workers’ personal lives, from their trying-to-conceive months to early motherhood. Diller’s bosses could look up aggregate data on how many workers using Ovia’s fertility, pregnancy and parenting apps had faced high-risk pregnancies or gave birth prematurely; the top medical questions they had researched; and how soon the new moms planned to return to work.
  • “Maybe I’m naive, but I thought of it as positive reinforcement: They’re trying to help me take care of myself,” said Diller, 39, an event planner in Los Angeles for the video game company Activision Blizzard. The decision to track her pregnancy had been made easier by the $1 a day in gift cards the company paid her to use the app: That’s “diaper and formula money,” she said.
  • But Ovia also has become a powerful monitoring tool for employers and health insurers, which under the banner of corporate wellness have aggressively pushed to gather more data about their workers’ lives than ever before.
  • ...13 more annotations...
  • Employers who pay the apps’ developer, Ovia Health, can offer their workers a special version of the apps that relays their health data — in a “de-identified,” aggregated form — to an internal employer website accessible by human resources personnel. The companies offer it alongside other health benefits and incentivize workers to input as much about their bodies as they can, saying the data can help the companies minimize health-care spending, discover medical problems and better plan for the months ahead.
  • By giving counseling and feedback on mothers’ progress, executives said, Ovia has helped women conceive after months of infertility and even saved the lives of women who wouldn’t otherwise have realized they were at risk.
  • But health and privacy advocates say this new generation of “menstrual surveillance” tools is pushing the limits of what women will share about one of the most sensitive moments of their lives. The apps, they say, are designed largely to benefit not the women but their employers and insurers, who gain a sweeping new benchmark on which to assess their workers as they consider the next steps for their families and careers.
  • Experts worry that companies could use the data to bump up the cost or scale back the coverage of health-care benefits, or that women’s intimate information could be exposed in data breaches or security risks. And though the data is made anonymous, experts also fear that the companies could identify women based on information relayed in confidence, particularly in workplaces where few women are pregnant at any given time.
  • The rise of pregnancy-tracking apps shows how some companies increasingly view the human body as a technological gold mine, rich with a vast range of health data their algorithms can track and analyze. Women’s bodies have been portrayed as especially lucrative: The consulting firm Frost & Sullivan said the “femtech” market — including tracking apps for women’s menstruation, nutrition and sexual wellness — could be worth as much as $50 billion by 2025.
  • Companies pay for Ovia’s “family benefits solution” package on a per-employee basis, but Ovia also makes money off targeted in-app advertising, including from sellers of fertility-support supplements, life insurance, cord-blood banking and cleaning products.
  • In 2014, when the company rolled out incentives for workers who tracked their physical activity with a Fitbit, some employees voiced concerns over what they called a privacy-infringing overreach. But as the company offered more health tracking — including for mental health, sleep, diet, autism and cancer care — Ezzard said workers grew more comfortable with the trade-off and enticed by the financial benefits.
  • But a key element of Ovia’s sales pitch is how companies can cut back on medical costs and help usher women back to work. Pregnant women who track themselves, the company says, will live healthier, feel more in control and be less likely to give birth prematurely or via a C-section, both of which cost more in medical bills — for the family and the employer.
  • Women wanting to get pregnant are told they can rely on Ovia’s “fertility algorithms,” which analyze their menstrual data and suggest good times to try to conceive, potentially saving money on infertility treatments. “An average of 33 hours of productivity are lost for every round of treatment,” an Ovia marketing document says.
  • Ovia, in essence, promises companies a tantalizing offer: lower costs and fewer surprises. Wallace gave one example in which a woman had twins prematurely, received unneeded treatments and spent three months in intensive care. “It was a million-dollar birth … so the company comes to us: How can you help us with this?” he said.
  • “The fact that women’s pregnancies are being tracked that closely by employers is very disturbing,” said Deborah C. Peel, a psychiatrist and founder of the Texas nonprofit Patient Privacy Rights. “There’s so much discrimination against mothers and families in the workplace, and they can’t trust their employer to have their best interests at heart.” Federal law forbids companies from discriminating against pregnant women and mandates that pregnancy-related health-care expenses be covered in the same way as other medical conditions. Ovia said the data helps employers provide “better benefits, health coverage and support.”
  • Companies can also see which articles are most read in Ovia’s apps, offering them a potential road map to their workers’ personal questions or anxieties. The how-to guides touch on virtually every aspect of a woman’s changing body, mood, financial needs and lifestyle in hyper-intimate detail, including filing for disability, treating bodily aches and discharges, and suggestions for sex positions during pregnancy.
  • The coming years, however, will probably see companies pushing for more pregnancy data to come straight from the source. The Israeli start-up Nuvo advertises a sensor band strapped around a woman’s belly that can send real-time data on fetal heartbeat and uterine activity “across the home, the workplace, the doctor’s office and the hospital.” Nuvo executives said its “remote pregnancy monitoring platform” is undergoing U.S. Food and Drug Administration review.
  •  
    "As apps to help moms monitor their health proliferate, employers and insurers pay to keep tabs on the vast and valuable data"
Aurialie Jublin

Many US Facebook users have changed privacy settings or taken a break | Pew Research Ce... - 0 views

  • There are, however, age differences in the share of Facebook users who have recently taken some of these actions. Most notably, 44% of younger users (those ages 18 to 29) say they have deleted the Facebook app from their phone in the past year, nearly four times the share of users ages 65 and older (12%) who have done so. Similarly, older users are much less likely to say they have adjusted their Facebook privacy settings in the past 12 months: Only a third of Facebook users 65 and older have done this, compared with 64% of younger users. In earlier research, Pew Research Center has found that a larger share of younger than older adults use Facebook. Still, similar shares of older and younger users have taken a break from Facebook for a period of several weeks or more.
  • Roughly half of the users who have downloaded their personal data from Facebook (47%) have deleted the app from their cellphone, while 79% have elected to adjust their privacy settings.
  •  
    "Significant shares of Facebook users have taken steps in the past year to reframe their relationship with the social media platform. Just over half of Facebook users ages 18 and older (54%) say they have adjusted their privacy settings in the past 12 months, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. Around four-in-ten (42%) say they have taken a break from checking the platform for a period of several weeks or more, while around a quarter (26%) say they have deleted the Facebook app from their cellphone. All told, some 74% of Facebook users say they have taken at least one of these three actions in the past year."
Aurialie Jublin

An Apology for the Internet - From the People Who Built It - 1 views

  • There have always been outsiders who criticized the tech industry — even if their concerns have been drowned out by the oohs and aahs of consumers, investors, and journalists. But today, the most dire warnings are coming from the heart of Silicon Valley itself. The man who oversaw the creation of the original iPhone believes the device he helped build is too addictive. The inventor of the World Wide Web fears his creation is being “weaponized.” Even Sean Parker, Facebook’s first president, has blasted social media as a dangerous form of psychological manipulation. “God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains,” he lamented recently.
  • To keep the internet free — while becoming richer, faster, than anyone in history — the technological elite needed something to attract billions of users to the ads they were selling. And that something, it turns out, was outrage. As Jaron Lanier, a pioneer in virtual reality, points out, anger is the emotion most effective at driving “engagement” — which also makes it, in a market for attention, the most profitable one. By creating a self-perpetuating loop of shock and recrimination, social media further polarized what had already seemed, during the Obama years, an impossibly and irredeemably polarized country.
  • The Architects (In order of appearance.) Jaron Lanier, virtual-reality pioneer. Founded first company to sell VR goggles; worked at Atari and Microsoft. Antonio García Martínez, ad-tech entrepreneur. Helped create Facebook’s ad machine. Ellen Pao, former CEO of Reddit. Filed major gender-discrimination lawsuit against VC firm Kleiner Perkins. Can Duruk, programmer and tech writer. Served as project lead at Uber. Kate Losse, Facebook employee No. 51. Served as Mark Zuckerberg’s speechwriter. Tristan Harris, product designer. Wrote internal Google presentation about addictive and unethical design. Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka, entrepreneur who founded influential message board Something Awful. Ethan Zuckerman, MIT media scholar. Invented the pop-up ad. Dan McComas, former product chief at Reddit. Founded community-based platform Imzy. Sandy Parakilas, product manager at Uber. Ran privacy compliance for Facebook apps. Guillaume Chaslot, AI researcher. Helped develop YouTube’s algorithmic recommendation system. Roger McNamee, VC investor. Introduced Mark Zuckerberg to Sheryl Sandberg. Richard Stallman, MIT programmer. Created legendary software GNU and Emacs.
  • ...45 more annotations...
  • How It Went Wrong, in 15 Steps Step 1 Start With Hippie Good Intentions …
  • I think two things are at the root of the present crisis. One was the idealistic view of the internet — the idea that this is the great place to share information and connect with like-minded people. The second part was the people who started these companies were very homogeneous. You had one set of experiences, one set of views, that drove all of the platforms on the internet. So the combination of this belief that the internet was a bright, positive place and the very similar people who all shared that view ended up creating platforms that were designed and oriented around free speech.
  • Step 2 … Then mix in capitalism on steroids. To transform the world, you first need to take it over. The planetary scale and power envisioned by Silicon Valley’s early hippies turned out to be as well suited for making money as they were for saving the world.
  • Step 3 The arrival of Wall Streeters didn’t help … Just as Facebook became the first overnight social-media success, the stock market crashed, sending money-minded investors westward toward the tech industry. Before long, a handful of companies had created a virtual monopoly on digital life.
  • Ethan Zuckerman: Over the last decade, the social-media platforms have been working to make the web almost irrelevant. Facebook would, in many ways, prefer that we didn’t have the internet. They’d prefer that we had Facebook.
  • Step 4 … And we paid a high price for keeping it free. To avoid charging for the internet — while becoming fabulously rich at the same time — Silicon Valley turned to digital advertising. But to sell ads that target individual users, you need to grow a big audience — and use advancing technology to gather reams of personal data that will enable you to reach them efficiently.
  • Harris: If you’re YouTube, you want people to register as many accounts as possible, uploading as many videos as possible, driving as many views to those videos as possible, so you can generate lots of activity that you can sell to advertisers. So whether or not the users are real human beings or Russian bots, whether or not the videos are real or conspiracy theories or disturbing content aimed at kids, you don’t really care. You’re just trying to drive engagement to the stuff and maximize all that activity. So everything stems from this engagement-based business model that incentivizes the most mindless things that harm the fabric of society.
  • Step 5 Everything was designed to be really, really addictive. The social-media giants became “attention merchants,” bent on hooking users no mater the consequences. “Engagement” was the euphemism for the metric, but in practice it evolved into an unprecedented machine for behavior modification.
  • Harris: That blue Facebook icon on your home screen is really good at creating unconscious habits that people have a hard time extinguishing. People don’t see the way that their minds are being manipulated by addiction. Facebook has become the largest civilization-scale mind-control machine that the world has ever seen.
  • Step 6 At first, it worked — almost too well. None of the companies hid their plans or lied about how their money was made. But as users became deeply enmeshed in the increasingly addictive web of surveillance, the leading digital platforms became wildly popular.
  • Pao: There’s this idea that, “Yes, they can use this information to manipulate other people, but I’m not gonna fall for that, so I’m protected from being manipulated.” Slowly, over time, you become addicted to the interactions, so it’s hard to opt out. And they just keep taking more and more of your time and pushing more and more fake news. It becomes easy just to go about your life and assume that things are being taken care of.
  • McNamee: If you go back to the early days of propaganda theory, Edward Bernays had a hypothesis that to implant an idea and make it universally acceptable, you needed to have the same message appearing in every medium all the time for a really long period of time. The notion was it could only be done by a government. Then Facebook came along, and it had this ability to personalize for every single user. Instead of being a broadcast model, it was now 2.2 billion individualized channels. It was the most effective product ever created to revolve around human emotions.
  • Step 7 No one from Silicon Valley was held accountable … No one in the government — or, for that matter, in the tech industry’s user base — seemed interested in bringing such a wealthy, dynamic sector to heel.
  • Step 8 … Even as social networks became dangerous and toxic. With companies scaling at unprecedented rates, user security took a backseat to growth and engagement. Resources went to selling ads, not protecting users from abuse.
  • Lanier: Every time there’s some movement like Black Lives Matter or #MeToo, you have this initial period where people feel like they’re on this magic-carpet ride. Social media is letting them reach people and organize faster than ever before. They’re thinking, Wow, Facebook and Twitter are these wonderful tools of democracy. But it turns out that the same data that creates a positive, constructive process like the Arab Spring can be used to irritate other groups. So every time you have a Black Lives Matter, social media responds by empowering neo-Nazis and racists in a way that hasn’t been seen in generations. The original good intention winds up empowering its opposite.
  • Chaslot: As an engineer at Google, I would see something weird and propose a solution to management. But just noticing the problem was hurting the business model. So they would say, “Okay, but is it really a problem?” They trust the structure. For instance, I saw this conspiracy theory that was spreading. It’s really large — I think the algorithm may have gone crazy. But I was told, “Don’t worry — we have the best people working on it. It should be fine.” Then they conclude that people are just stupid. They don’t want to believe that the problem might be due to the algorithm.
  • Parakilas: One time a developer who had access to Facebook’s data was accused of creating profiles of people without their consent, including children. But when we heard about it, we had no way of proving whether it had actually happened, because we had no visibility into the data once it left Facebook’s servers. So Facebook had policies against things like this, but it gave us no ability to see what developers were actually doing.
  • McComas: Ultimately the problem Reddit has is the same as Twitter: By focusing on growth and growth only, and ignoring the problems, they amassed a large set of cultural norms on their platforms that stem from harassment or abuse or bad behavior. They have worked themselves into a position where they’re completely defensive and they can just never catch up on the problem. I don’t see any way it’s going to improve. The best they can do is figure out how to hide the bad behavior from the average user.
  • Step 9 … And even as they invaded our privacy. The more features Facebook and other platforms added, the more data users willingly, if unwittingly, released to them and the data brokers who power digital advertising.
  • Richard Stallman: What is data privacy? That means that if a company collects data about you, it should somehow protect that data. But I don’t think that’s the issue. The problem is that these companies are collecting data about you, period. We shouldn’t let them do that. The data that is collected will be abused. That’s not an absolute certainty, but it’s a practical extreme likelihood, which is enough to make collection a problem.
  • Losse: I’m not surprised at what’s going on now with Cambridge Analytica and the scandal over the election. For long time, the accepted idea at Facebook was: Giving developers as much data as possible to make these products is good. But to think that, you also have to not think about the data implications for users. That’s just not your priority.
  • Step 10 Then came 2016. The election of Donald Trump and the triumph of Brexit, two campaigns powered in large part by social media, demonstrated to tech insiders that connecting the world — at least via an advertising-surveillance scheme — doesn’t necessarily lead to that hippie utopia.
  • Chaslot: I realized personally that things were going wrong in 2011, when I was working at Google. I was working on this YouTube recommendation algorithm, and I realized that the algorithm was always giving you the same type of content. For instance, if I give you a video of a cat and you watch it, the algorithm thinks, Oh, he must really like cats. That creates these feeder bubbles where people just see one type of information. But when I notified my managers at Google and proposed a solution that would give a user more control so he could get out of the feeder bubble, they realized that this type of algorithm would not be very beneficial for watch time. They didn’t want to push that, because the entire business model is based on watch time.
  • Step 11 Employees are starting to revolt. Tech-industry executives aren’t likely to bite the hand that feeds them. But maybe their employees — the ones who signed up for the mission as much as the money — can rise up and make a change.
  • Harris: There’s a massive demoralizing wave that is hitting Silicon Valley. It’s getting very hard for companies to attract and retain the best engineers and talent when they realize that the automated system they’ve built is causing havoc everywhere around the world. So if Facebook loses a big chunk of its workforce because people don’t want to be part of that perverse system anymore, that is a very powerful and very immediate lever to force them to change.
  • Duruk: I was at Uber when all the madness was happening there, and it did affect recruiting and hiring. I don’t think these companies are going to go down because they can’t attract the right talent. But there’s going to be a measurable impact. It has become less of a moral positive now — you go to Facebook to write some code and then you go home. They’re becoming just another company.
  • Step 12 To fix it, we’ll need a new business model … If the problem is in the way the Valley makes money, it’s going to have to make money a different way. Maybe by trying something radical and new — like charging users for goods and services.
  • Parakilas: They’re going to have to change their business model quite dramatically. They say they want to make time well spent the focus of their product, but they have no incentive to do that, nor have they created a metric by which they would measure that. But if Facebook charged a subscription instead of relying on advertising, then people would use it less and Facebook would still make money. It would be equally profitable and more beneficial to society. In fact, if you charged users a few dollars a month, you would equal the revenue Facebook gets from advertising. It’s not inconceivable that a large percentage of their user base would be willing to pay a few dollars a month.
  • Step 13 … And some tough regulation. Mark Zuckerberg testifying before Congress on April 10. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images While we’re at it, where has the government been in all this? 
  • Stallman: We need a law. Fuck them — there’s no reason we should let them exist if the price is knowing everything about us. Let them disappear. They’re not important — our human rights are important. No company is so important that its existence justifies setting up a police state. And a police state is what we’re heading toward.
  • Duruk: The biggest existential problem for them would be regulation. Because it’s clear that nothing else will stop these companies from using their size and their technology to just keep growing. Without regulation, we’ll basically just be complaining constantly, and not much will change.
  • McNamee: Three things. First, there needs to be a law against bots and trolls impersonating other people. I’m not saying no bots. I’m just saying bots have to be really clearly marked. Second, there have to be strict age limits to protect children. And third, there has to be genuine liability for platforms when their algorithms fail. If Google can’t block the obviously phony story that the kids in Parkland were actors, they need to be held accountable.
  • Stallman: We need a law that requires every system to be designed in a way that achieves its basic goal with the least possible collection of data. Let’s say you want to ride in a car and pay for the ride. That doesn’t fundamentally require knowing who you are. So services which do that must be required by law to give you the option of paying cash, or using some other anonymous-payment system, without being identified. They should also have ways you can call for a ride without identifying yourself, without having to use a cell phone. Companies that won’t go along with this — well, they’re welcome to go out of business. Good riddance.
  • Step 14 Maybe nothing will change. The scariest possibility is that nothing can be done — that the behemoths of the new internet are too rich, too powerful, and too addictive for anyone to fix.
  • García: Look, I mean, advertising sucks, sure. But as the ad tech guys say, “We’re the people who pay for the internet.” It’s hard to imagine a different business model other than advertising for any consumer internet app that depends on network effects.
  • Step 15 … Unless, at the very least, some new people are in charge. If Silicon Valley’s problems are a result of bad decision-making, it might be time to look for better decision-makers. One place to start would be outside the homogeneous group currently in power.
  • Pao: I’ve urged Facebook to bring in people who are not part of a homogeneous majority to their executive team, to every product team, to every strategy discussion. The people who are there now clearly don’t understand the impact of their platforms and the nature of the problem. You need people who are living the problem to clarify the extent of it and help solve it.
  • Things That Ruined the Internet
  • Cookies (1994) The original surveillance tool of the internet. Developed by programmer Lou Montulli to eliminate the need for repeated log-ins, cookies also enabled third parties like Google to track users across the web. The risk of abuse was low, Montulli thought, because only a “large, publicly visible company” would have the capacity to make use of such data. The result: digital ads that follow you wherever you go online.
  • The Farmville vulnerability (2007)   When Facebook opened up its social network to third-party developers, enabling them to build apps that users could share with their friends, it inadvertently opened the door a bit too wide. By tapping into user accounts, developers could download a wealth of personal data — which is exactly what a political-consulting firm called Cambridge Analytica did to 87 million Americans.
  • Algorithmic sorting (2006) It’s how the internet serves up what it thinks you want — automated calculations based on dozens of hidden metrics. Facebook’s News Feed uses it every time you hit refresh, and so does YouTube. It’s highly addictive — and it keeps users walled off in their own personalized loops. “When social media is designed primarily for engagement,” tweets Guillaume Chaslot, the engineer who designed YouTube’s algorithm, “it is not surprising that it hurts democracy and free speech.”
  • The “like” button (2009) Initially known as the “awesome” button, the icon was designed to unleash a wave of positivity online. But its addictive properties became so troubling that one of its creators, Leah Pearlman, has since renounced it. “Do you know that episode of Black Mirror where everyone is obsessed with likes?” she told Vice last year. “I suddenly felt terrified of becoming those people — as well as thinking I’d created that environment for everyone else.”
  • Pull-to-refresh (2009) Developed by software developer Loren Brichter for an iPhone app, the simple gesture — scrolling downward at the top of a feed to fetch more data — has become an endless, involuntary tic. “Pull-to-refresh is addictive,” Brichter told The Guardian last year. “I regret the downsides.”
  • Pop-up ads (1996) While working at an early blogging platform, Ethan Zuckerman came up with the now-ubiquitous tool for separating ads from content that advertisers might find objectionable. “I really did not mean to break the internet,” he told the podcast Reply All. “I really did not mean to bring this horrible thing into people’s lives. I really am extremely sorry about this.”
  • The Silicon Valley dream was born of the counterculture. A generation of computer programmers and designers flocked to the Bay Area’s tech scene in the 1970s and ’80s, embracing new technology as a tool to transform the world for good.
  •  
    Internet en 15 étapes, de sa construction à aujourd'hui, regards et regrets de ceux qui l'ont construit... [...] "Things That Ruined the Internet" les cookies 1994 / la faille Farmville 2007 / le tri algorithmique 2006 / le "like" 2009 / le "pull to refresh" 2009 / les "pop-up ads" 1996 [...]
Aurialie Jublin

Des "apps" envoient des données personnelles sensibles à Facebook - TV5Monde - 0 views

  • De son côté, Facebook explique que s'il collecte bien certaines données via des "apps" externes, il interdit à ces dernières de lui faire parvenir des informations sensibles des usagers.
  • Parmi ces données collectées figurent des infos très sensibles, poursuit le WSJ, citant l'exemple d'une application qui sert à surveiller ses périodes d'ovulation et dans laquelle l'utilisatrice rentre les dates de ses cycles menstruels.Selon les tests du WSJ, ces données, mais aussi le poids ou des habitudes en matière de shopping sont envoyées à Facebook à l'insu des usagers.
  •  
    "Facebook récupère en toute opacité des données personnelles sensibles et intimes, comme des informations relatives à la santé, venues d'autres applications même si l'usager n'a pas de compte Facebook, selon le Wall Street Journal vendredi."
Aurialie Jublin

Opinion | There May Soon Be Three Internets. America's Won't Necessarily Be the Best. -... - 0 views

  • The received wisdom was once that a unified, unbounded web promoted democracy through the free flow of information. Things don’t seem quite so simple anymore. China’s tight control of the internet within its borders continues to tamp down talk of democracy, and an increasingly sophisticated system of digital surveillance plays a major role in human rights abuses, such as the persecution of the Uighurs. We’ve also seen the dark side to connecting people to one another — as illustrated by how misinformation on social media played a significant role in the violence in Myanmar.
  • There’s a world of difference between the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, known commonly as G.D.P.R., and China’s technologically enforced censorship regime, often dubbed “the Great Firewall.” But all three spheres — Europe, America and China — are generating sets of rules, regulations and norms that are beginning to rub up against one another.
  • The information superhighway cracks apart more easily when so much of it depends on privately owned infrastructure. An error at Amazon Web Services created losses of service across the web in 2017; a storm disrupting a data center in Northern Virginia created similar failures in 2012. These were unintentional blackouts; the corporate custodians of the internet have it within their power to do far more. Of course, nobody wants to turn off the internet completely — that wouldn’t make anyone money. But when a single company with huge market share chooses to comply with a law — or more worryingly, a mere suggestion from the authorities — a large chunk of the internet ends up falling in line.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • But eight years later, Google is working on a search engine for China known as Dragonfly. Its launch will be conditional on the approval of Chinese officials and will therefore comply with stringent censorship requirements. An internal memo written by one of the engineers on the project described surveillance capabilities built into the engine — namely by requiring users to log in and then tracking their browsing histories. This data will be accessible by an unnamed Chinese partner, presumably the government.
  • Google says all features are speculative and no decision has been made on whether to launch Dragonfly, but a leaked transcript of a meeting inside Google later acquired by The Intercept, a news site, contradicts that line. In the transcript, Google’s head of search, Ben Gomes, is quoted as saying that it hoped to launch within six to nine months, although the unstable American-China relationship makes it difficult to predict when or even whether the Chinese government will give the go-ahead.
  • Internet censorship and surveillance were once hallmarks of oppressive governments — with Egypt, Iran and China being prime examples. It’s since become clear that secretive digital surveillance isn’t just the domain of anti-democratic forces. The Snowden revelations in 2013 knocked the United States off its high horse, and may have pushed the technology industry into an increasingly agnostic outlook on human rights.
  • If the future of the internet is a tripartite cold war, Silicon Valley wants to be making money in all three of those worlds.
  • Yet even the best possible version of the disaggregated web has serious — though still uncertain — implications for a global future: What sorts of ideas and speech will become bounded by borders? What will an increasingly disconnected world do to the spread of innovation and to scientific progress? What will consumer protections around privacy and security look like as the internets diverge? And would the partitioning of the internet precipitate a slowing, or even a reversal, of globalization?
  • What these types of sky-is-falling articles keep getting wrong is the idea that the World Wide Web is the same as the Internet. It’s not. Web sites and the browsers that access them are an application that uses the Internet for transport.The Internet transports far more than just web traffic, but the most crucial one for companies is probably VPN: Companies connect to one another using site-to-site VPNs. Their employees can work from anywhere with remote user VPN. Disconnect the EU from the US, and you’ve removed the cheapest way for companies to connect their networks together.These regulatory worlds will get along somehow. Perhaps someone will write a web app that recognizes where a user is from, and apply appropriate policy to their session. Perhaps that web app will become wildly popular and be deployed on every website everywhere. I don’t know how it will work, but I do know the Internet will not become fragmented.
  • The internet was never meant to be a walled garden. Remember America Online began as a walled garden until the World Wide Web came along and “tore down that wall.” So, Europe can have its Europe Wide Web and China can have its China Wide Web, but we will always be the World Wide Web – truly open and free. The “one internet led by the United States” will remain the world’s “go to” information super highway just as the greenback has remained the world’s reserve currency for decades.
  •  
    "In September, Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive and Alphabet chairman, said that in the next 10 to 15 years, the internet would most likely be split in two - one internet led by China and one internet led by the United States. Mr. Schmidt, speaking at a private event hosted by a venture capital firm, did not seem to seriously entertain the possibility that the internet would remain global. He's correct to rule out that possibility - if anything, the flaw in Mr. Schmidt's thinking is that he too quickly dismisses the European internet that is coalescing around the European Union's ever-heightening regulation of technology platforms. All signs point to a future with three internets."
Aurialie Jublin

Where Next for #platformcoop? - Danny Spitzberg - Medium - 0 views

  • But in terms of vocational shifts or better business practices, it’s unclear what #platformcoop has produced. The original excitement is giving way to unmet expectations.
  • In Baltimore, a group of returning citizens — men and women who were formerly incarcerated — faced ridiculously unfair barriers to employment. And so, over the past two years, they formed Core Staffing, a staffing agency with 12 members.
  • When I asked about where Core Staffing is investing its energy lately, Joseph said, “we’re trying to figure out how to foster close relationships and community while managing a distributed workforce. What will keep people engaged outside of profit?” Core Staffing currently has 15 members, fewer than virtually any other platform co-operative, but these tensions are already very present.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • A second question for Joseph revolves around money. Core Staffing is considering a large loan to build its platform. Joseph says, “We’re not going to be profitable for at least a year. I don’t want to us take on a huge amount of debt. But we have unanimous decisions for financial decisions that affect everyone’s equity, and right now, the members are voting ‘yes’ to take it.”
  • We all should obsess less over which organizations may or may not be “real” platform co-operatives, and reframe the conversation to assess how they model cooperativism — such as democratic governance, collective decision-making, and how their capital is made accountable to workers. This approach would cultivate the curiosity and humility necessary to help new participants.
  • Yet their basic questions remained unanswered. Where did “platform cooperativism” come from? How is a “platform” different than a website — don’t most co-ops have an online presence?
  • The more it can succeed with disintermediation, removing links in their supply chains and systems, the more we all learn and benefit. This begins with meeting people where they’re at.
  • While writing this article, I surveyed people about trends and challenges in the co-op movement. I polled groups obsessed with digital tools and online platforms, and yet the responses were far more grounded than I expected. In fact, the two challenges Joseph sees for Core Staffing echo everything: appropriate finance, and engagement at scale.
  • I believe radical technologist Micky Metts said it best: “I have run into many people that have existed in the corporate world but really do not understand co-operative engagement, even if they are caring and loving individuals.” In her mind, removing the fear we’re conditioned with is the first step for co-ops to grow. Data Commons co-founder Noemi Giszpenc takes it a step further by urging “true participation” among all users.
  • After two days of prototyping with Sylvia Morse and Up & Go, a New York platform for home cleaning, I learned that all platforms compete on quality. The members, mainly latinx women, are cleaning professionals. They provide reliable, consistent, five-star service. One user said, “I honestly don’t care if workers own the app.” Ironically, that indifference is a reason why platform co-ops like Up & Go can change the narrative about on-demand labor. It’s a labor of love, and it’s much more than an idea.
  • Robin Hood Co-op, a Finnish activist hedge fund, illustrates the diversity of co-operative models we have in this movement. Ana Fradique, a culture worker and community coordinator with Robin Hood, told me that all bureaucratic structures familiar to co-ops “need to be revized and supported by more flexible, faster technologies and modes of co-operation.” Her perspective comes from “experience with the different gears of operating online networks, where power and decision is faster than what the formal structure allows.” In a listserv, emails rarely achieve the escape velocity required to move from discussion to action.
  •  
    "I wrote this article to examine the idea of "platform cooperativism," where it's headed, and what it needs in order to use technology for economic justice."
Aurialie Jublin

Redecentralize.org - 0 views

  • Motivations for decentralizing the internet vary. These three keep coming up: Resilient - whether there’s a hurricane, a severed trans-atlantic cable or just a train line with a poor connection, we’d like to be able to carry on making phone calls and sharing documents. Private - as a company keeping our commercial secrets, or as an individual concerned about criminals and overreaching governments, we'd like our most personal messages not to be held in distant data centres. Competitive - we're often forced to use one dominant provider who restricts competition, we'd like to build communtities around new protocols, driving innovation of new services on top.
  •  
    "The original Internet was decentralized. Anyone could set up parts of it. That's why it won. For various reasons, control of our information technologies is increasingly falling into a few hands. Some big companies and Governments. We want it to become decentralized. Again."
Aurialie Jublin

Can Worker Co-ops Make the Tech Sector More Equitable? | The Nation - 0 views

  • Fed up with this heartless model, some tech activists are developing online workplaces that operate as worker-driven communities. Daemo, a pilot program incubated at Stanford University’s Crowd Research Collective, is one such worker-driven crowd-labor platform. Since 2015, Daemo’s developers have been building on MTurk’s interface with a communications system aimed at allowing for more equitable “matching” between work requesters and digital taskers. As a non-hierarchical, nonprofit framework where workers control the operations, Daemo is designed for fairer working conditions, with a minimum wage of $10 an hour, which is a major improvement on MTurk’s precarious labor-outsourcing system.
  • Some former participants in Daemo’s project recently aired sharp criticism of the platform in response to a largely favorable article in Wired. In a collectively authored article on Medium, they argued that, in their practical experience with the platform, decision-making power rests with a “platform team” of researchers and leading developers. Though Daemo has established a Constitution that theoretically is open to amendments and revision based on workers’ input, critics say the day-to-day management remains tightly controlled by researchers.
  • “Whenever they talk about the decentralization, they talk about technical decentralization, like block-chain or decentralized platforms, but most of the time they overlook the governance level, which is more important,” Hashim says. “So it’s about who takes the positions, it’s about who has the right to access information. If you don’t have a well-informed society, you don’t have democracy.”
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Kristy Milland, an activist with the MTurk advocacy network We Are Dynamo, says she’s given up collaborating with Daemo because “There hasn’t been any deep, involved worker input…. It’s built by academics with the bias they bring to such a platform that they expect will provide them with free data to publish down the road. Just like Amazon built MTurk with their needs in mind, even if many of the roadblocks this caused may have been unintentional.”
  • The “platform cooperativism” concept, as articulated by technologist Trebor Scholz and other academics, is that worker control can be integrated by working with the democratic aspects of the online sphere: entrepreneurial horizontalism and a pluralistic culture of innovation. But with online workspaces proliferating at breakneck speed, it’s a race to see whether these more principled worker-led models will ever be able to compete for market share with the app-based workforce of MTurk. Similarly, small-scale cab-service cooperatives are emerging in the United States, but Uber and Lyft’s mega brands are displacing cabbies by the minute.
  • The problem with crowd labor isn’t that it’s big, or complex; it’s that workers can’t control their means of technological production. According to Joshua Danielson of the Bay Area start-up cooperative Loconomics, Daemo’s model “has the potential to provide an alternative to Amazon Turk,” if the platform combines a good product and good jobs for the producers. The key, he says via e-mail, is “creating a cooperative business model that can be self-sufficient and be able to attract clients. The latter is the more challenging one given the deep pockets of the current players. That said, it’s important to remember that workers are the product, not the platform, and they hold an immense amount of power if they can organize.”
  • The digital frontier offers endless room both for exploitation and for social transformation. But if workers can get ahead of corporations in harnessing the potential of open-source technology, they can disrupt the incumbent Silicon Valley oligarchs from below. So far, technology hasn’t emancipated labor nearly as rapidly as it has liberalized markets. Cooperative thinking can make technological power part of the solution, but only if it’s matched with people power.
  •  
    "The crowdwork sector is dominated by low-paid gigs-can communally run companies make these jobs sustainable?"
Aurialie Jublin

Open Source Doesn't Make Money Because It Isn't Designed To Make Money - 0 views

  • We treat open source like it’s a poison pill for a commercial product. And yes, with an open source license it’s harder to force someone to pay for a product, though many successful businesses exist without forcing anyone.
  • I see an implicit assumption that makes it harder to think about this: the idea that if something is useful, it should be profitable. It’s an unspoken and morally-infused expectation, a kind of Just World hypothesis: if something has utility, if it helps people, if it’s something the world needs, if it empowers other people, then there should be a revenue opportunity. It should be possible for the thing to be your day job, to make money, to see some remuneration for your successful effort in creating or doing this thing.
  • That’s what we think the world should be like, but we all know it isn’t. You can’t make a living making music. Or art. You can’t even make a living taking care of children. I think this underlies many of this moment’s critiques of capitalism: there’s too many things that are important, even needed, or that fulfill us more than any profitable item, and yet are economically unsustainable.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • So what can you get paid to do? People will pay a little for apps; not a lot, but a bit. Scaling up requires marketing and capital, which open source projects almost never have (and I doubt many open source projects would know what to do with capital if they had it). There’s always money in ads. Sadly. This could potentially offend someone enough to actually repackage your open source software with ads removed. As a form of price discrimination (e.g., paid ad removal) I think you could avoid defection. Fully-hosted services: Automattic’s wordpress.com is a good example here. Is Ghost doing OK? These are complete solutions: you don’t just get software, you get a website. People will pay if you ensure they get a personalized solution. I.e., consulting. Applied to software you get consultingware. While often maligned, many real businesses are built on this. I think Drupal is in this category. People will pay you for your dedicated and ongoing attention. In other words: a day job as an employee. It feels unfair to put this option on the list, but it’s such a natural progression from consultingware, and such a dominant pattern in open source that I think it deserves acknowledgement. Anything paired with a physical device. People will judge the value based on the hardware and software experience together. I’m not sure if Firefox makes money (indirectly) from ads, or as compensation for maintaining monopoly positions.
  • And so I remain pessimistic that open source can find commercial success. But also frustrated: so much software is open source except any commercial product. This is where the Free Software mission has faltered despite so many successes: software that people actually touch isn’t free or open. That’s a shame.
  •  
    "We all know the story: you can't make money on open source. Is it really true? I'm thinking about this now because Mozilla would like to diversify its revenue in the next few years, and one constraint we have is that everything we do is open source. There are dozens (hundreds?) of successful open source projects that have tried to become even just modest commercial enterprises, some very seriously. Results aren't great."
Aurialie Jublin

Facebook while black: Users call it getting 'Zucked,' say talking about racism is censo... - 0 views

  • Black activists say hate speech policies and content moderation systems formulated by a company built by and dominated by white men fail the very people Facebook claims it's trying to protect. Not only are the voices of marginalized groups disproportionately stifled, Facebook rarely takes action on repeated reports of racial slurs, violent threats and harassment campaigns targeting black users, they say.
  • For Wysinger, an activist whose podcast The C-Dubb Show frequently explores anti-black racism, the troubling episode recalled the nation's dark history of lynching, when charges of sexual violence against a white woman were used to justify mob murders of black men. "White men are so fragile," she fired off, sharing William's post with her friends, "and the mere presence of a black person challenges every single thing in them." It took just 15 minutes for Facebook to delete her post for violating its community standards for hate speech. And she was warned if she posted it again, she'd be banned for 72 hours.
  • So to avoid being flagged, they use digital slang such as "wypipo," emojis or hashtags to elude Facebook's computer algorithms and content moderators. They operate under aliases and maintain back-up accounts to avoid losing content and access to their community. And they've developed a buddy system to alert friends and followers when a fellow black activist has been sent to Facebook jail, sharing the news of the suspension and the posts that put them there.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • They call it getting "Zucked" and black activists say these bans have serious repercussions, not just cutting people off from their friends and family for hours, days or weeks at a time, but often from the Facebook pages they operate for their small businesses and nonprofits.
  • A couple of weeks ago, Black Lives Matter organizer Tanya Faison had one of her posts removed as hate speech. "Dear white people," she wrote in the post, "it is not my job to educate you or to donate my emotional labor to make sure you are informed. If you take advantage of that time and labor, you will definitely get the elbow when I see you." After being alerted by USA TODAY, Facebook apologized to Faison and reversed its decision.
  • "Black people are punished on Facebook for speaking directly to the racism we have experienced," says Seattle black anti-racism consultant and conceptual artist Natasha Marin.
  • There are just too many sensitive decisions for Facebook to make them all on its own, Zuckerberg said last month. A string of violent attacks, including a mass shooting at two mosques in New Zealand, recently forced Facebook to reckon with the scourge of white nationalist content on its platform. "Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech," Zuckerberg wrote, "and frankly I agree."  In late 2017 and early 2018, Facebook explored whether certain groups should be afforded more protection than others. For now, the company has decided to maintain its policy of protecting all racial and ethnic groups equally, even if they do not face oppression or marginalization, says Neil Potts, public policy director at Facebook. Applying more "nuanced" rules to the daily tidal wave of content rushing through Facebook and its other apps would be very challenging, he says.
  •  
    "STORY HIGHLIGHTS Black activists say hate speech policies and content moderation stifle marginalized groups. Mark Zuckerberg says lawmakers tell him Facebook has too much power over speech. "Frankly I agree." Civil rights groups say Facebook has not cut down on hate speech against African Americans. "
Aurialie Jublin

What the hell is a blockchain phone-and do I need one? - MIT Technology Review - 0 views

  • All of a sudden, several crypto-focused handsets are hitting the market, or will soon. The biggest player in the new game is Samsung, which confirmed this month that the Galaxy S10 will include a secure storage system for cryptocurrency private keys. It joins HTC, which for months has been touting the Exodus 1; Sirin Labs, which used proceeds from a huge ICO to build the Finney; and Electroneum, which this week began selling an $80 Android phone that can mine cryptocurrency.
  • In the wildest dreams of enthusiasts, these devices will be a gateway to something called the decentralized web, or “Web 3.0.” In this future version of the internet, blockchains and similar technologies would support decentralized applications—“dapps”—that look and feel like the mobile apps we use today but run on public, peer-to-peer networks instead of the private servers of big tech companies.
  • It’s widely thought that a major impediment to mainstream adoption of cryptocurrency and dapps is that these technologies are too difficult to use for people who are not especially tech savvy. Better user experiences, starting with cryptographic key management, could change that. But getting there is not straightforward, given that key security is paramount: you lose your keys, you lose your assets.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • This also explains why Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin seems so excited about one particular feature of HTC’s Exodus 1, called social key recovery. Essentially, users can choose a small group of contacts and give them parts of their keys. If they lose their keys, they can recover them piece by piece from their contacts. Buterin, as usual, is looking far down the road, in this case to a future where people use blockchains to maintain more control over their digital identities and personal data than is generally possible today. Social key recovery is “arguably an early step toward formalized non-state-backed identity,” he tweeted.
  • Indeed, even if these phones take off, the decentralized web will still be mostly a dream. Construction of its foundational infrastructure is in the beginning stages. Perhaps an influx of new users would spawn compelling new applications, which might in turn inspire the development of new infrastructure. But the best the first round of blockchain phones can do is give us a glimpse at a potential future that’s still a long way off.
  •  
    "The first wave of crypto-focused smartphones from big players like Samsung is a small step toward a decentralized web."
Aurialie Jublin

Le Minitel : réhabiliter un contre-modèle pour penser l'Internet d'aujourd'hu... - 0 views

  • Cette culture industrielle a été rendue possible par « les vertus de la centralisation » (Mailland et Driscoll). En effet, elle a permis la création du Kiosque, la « killer app » du Minitel : un système très simple, mis en place par l’Administration pour simplifier les transactions économiques autour des services Minitel. Kiosque reversait directement 2/3 des profits de connexion aux fournisseurs d’accès, leur évitant des démarches. Les utilisateurs, eux, ne payaient qu’à la fin du mois, en bloc, en même temps que leur facture téléphonique. Cette simplicité d’utilisation a été essentielle, en encourageant les entrepreneurs à se lancer sur le Minitel, et les utilisateurs à se connecter aux services. Cette centralisation a été largement critiquée, car elle fait dépendre le modèle économique et les connexions d’un acteur unique et ici étatique. Mais les chercheurs notent que son efficacité ne fait pas de doute, au plan économique. On retrouve une organisation similaire chez les géants du Web : l’Apple Store, par exemple, fonctionne un peu comme une version privée du Kiosque. Mais ce n’est pas tout : pour Mailland et Driscoll, Minitel offre une version publique des marchés multifaces, mettant en relation des usagers/consommateurs et des fournisseurs de services, en prélevant une rente — modèle devenu le filon des économies de plateforme comme Uber ou Air BnB.
  • Le Minitel a été un « succès domestique », qui a permis à la France de devenir un pays extrêmement connecté, et à toute une population de découvrir des activités en ligne. Il a surtout favorisé l’« émergence d’une pratique collective de la communication numérique qui a généré des systèmes de représentations variés, des formes de discours et de comportements qui apparaissent aujourd’hui comme matriciels ». Ainsi, les forums de discussion, la communication anonyme par écran interposé, l’usage de pseudonymes, l’explosion de la pornographie, les débats sur la liberté d’expression ou la censure qu’on associe souvent aux cultures numériques... ont leur origine dans le Minitel.
  • Les messageries roses en sont l’exemple le plus célèbre (et le plus lucratif) mais les usages du Minitel ne se limitaient pas à l’annuaire et aux messageries coquines. D’autres usages, éclipsés par ce folklore, se sont aussi développés dans ces années-là, préfigurant les usages numériques : achat et vente par correspondance, services bancaires, consultation d’informations (horaires de train, de spectacle — ou autres : sur le service Minitel de Libération, on peut accéder dès 12h aux infos qui seront publiées le lendemain), usages administratifs, enseignement (informations, corrigés, inscriptions...), jeux (black jack, bridges, quizz et même un 3615 PENDU)...
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Certains s’emparent également du Minitel pour organiser des actions politiques, préfigurant l’usage qui est fait aujourd’hui des outils numériques : en 1986, des étudiants utilisent la messagerie de Libé pour organiser l’opposition à la loi Devaquet. Ils sont imités en 1988 et 89 par des infirmières, puis en 1992 par des syndicalistes du Ministère des Finances.
  • Pour Mailland et Driscoll, la réussite du Minitel permet de repenser l’opposition simpliste entre un système public et centralisé (mal) et un système privé et décentralisé (bien). Ils soulignent que ce sont les investissements stratégiques de l’État qui ont permis l’explosion du réseau — tout comme, aux États-Unis, c’est la décision du gouvernement de privatiser le « backbone » du réseau dans les années 1990 qui a conduit au boom commercial que l’on connaît. « L’intervention d’un état dans un système en ligne ne signifie pas automatiquement une perte de liberté. Au contraire : s’ils sont bien pensés, les fonds publics peuvent encourager la créativité et le développement dans le réseau. ».
  • Les auteurs se demandent alors si « des interventions ciblées du gouvernement ne pourraient pas réintroduire de la compétition et de l’ouverture, dans des champs d’Internet où les intérêts du secteur privé et du public ont cessé depuis longtemps de coïncider. » A l’heure où les appels à la régulation du secteur des GAFA par les Etats ou les instances supra-étatiques se multiplient, le Minitel aurait donc des choses à nous apprendre. « L’histoire du Minitel, et de ses trois décennies de fonctionnement, montre la voie vers un avenir différent, marqué par l’engagement envers l’intérêt public. (...) »
  • C’est cette défense des intérêts publics qui semble peu à peu reculer, selon les auteurs : « A moins d’une intervention stratégique des gouvernements ne préserve les éléments d’ouverture et d’équilibre des pouvoirs public/privé présents dans l’Internet des débuts et qui y ont attiré tant de hackeurs, d’entrepreneurs, d’expérimentateurs et d’explorateurs... l’Internet tel que nous le connaissons depuis les années 1990 ne vivra peut-être même pas trente ans. »
  •  
    "Suite de notre cycle sur les histoires d'Internet : reconsidérer le Minitel. Longtemps considéré comme une impasse française, l'incarnation du grand projet technocratique incapable d'évoluer, le Minitel est de plus en plus réhabilité par les historiens. Pas comme un modèle à suivre, mais comme une innovation radicale en son temps, qui fut pour les Français la première entrée dans les cultures numériques et dont le modèle dépendant des fonds publics peut nous aider à penser autrement l'Internet contemporain."
1 - 12 of 12
Showing 20 items per page