There was enough lithium mined in 2021 to supply 11.4 million EVs, according to the World Economic Forum. If EV sales double again over the next couple of years, the EV market will already exceed the current global supply of lithium, unless new mines and refiners come into production by then. Llithium prices are up 380% from a year ago, according to Kitco.

Oil, by the way, is a key ingredient in food. This is something a lot of people don't understand. There's this thing called the haber bosh process, which basically creates all of the nitrogen and all of the fertilizer that is used to grow food.

A recession is just a lot of people feeling bad vibes at the same time.

NBER, the National Bureau of Economic Research. They have this timing committee that looks at the economy as a whole and all of the data about the economy and looks back at where it was. And then after the fact will come out and say, you know what, we had a recession back then. It's not very useful because at that point we're normally pretty sure that there had been a recession in the past. There's no good indicator of whether there's a recession in the present. But there are some okay indicators like, for instance, has the unemployment rate shot up by half a percentage point and no, it hasn't.

So convenience stores is the active word here, right? What they are is they're convenience store owners. The way they make their money is by getting people into the convenience store and getting them to buy things in the store. The gas is really a loss leader in order to get people in the door of the convenience store.

So the last two recessions this doesn't apply to, but just set them aside for a minute. The rest and almost all the other recessions in Second World War have been caused by the Federal Reserve raising interest rates to bring down inflation or because of other financial concerns.

Valerie Peter recalled that, after she followed a bunch of astrology-focussed accounts on Twitter, her feed began recommending a deluge of astrological content. Her interest in the subject quickly faded—“I began fearing for my life every time Mercury was in retrograde,” she said—but Twitter kept pushing related content. The site has a button that users can hit to signal that they are “Not interested in this Tweet,” appended with a sad-face emoji, but when Peter tried it she found that Twitter’s suggested alternatives were astrology-related, too.

When we talk about “the algorithm,” we might be conflating recommender systems with online surveillance, monopolization, and the digital platforms’ takeover of all of our leisure time—in other words, with the entire extractive technology industry of the twenty-first century.

Jhaver came to see the Airbnb hosts as workers being overseen by a computer overlord instead of human managers. In order to make a living, they had to guess what their capricious boss wanted, and the anxious guesswork may have made the system less efficient over all.

Peter’s dilemma brought to my mind a term that has been used, in recent years, to describe the modern Internet user’s feeling that she must constantly contend with machine estimations of her desires: algorithmic anxiety. Besieged by automated recommendations, we are left to guess exactly how they are influencing us, feeling in some moments misperceived or misled and in other moments clocked with eerie precision. At times, the computer sometimes seems more in control of our choices than we are.

In her confusion, Peter wrote an e-mail seeking advice from Rachel Tashjian, a fashion critic who writes a popular newsletter called “Opulent Tips.” “I’ve been on the internet for the last 10 years and I don’t know if I like what I like or what an algorithm wants me to like,” Peter wrote. She’d come to see social networks’ algorithmic recommendations as a kind of psychic intrusion, surreptitiously reshaping what she’s shown online and, thus, her understanding of her own inclinations and tastes. “I want things I truly like not what is being lowkey marketed to me,” her letter continued.

You can tap the sign as much as you want, that battle was lost a long time ago. REST is just the common term people use for HTTP+JSON RPC.

From there, an API could be considered more "mature" as a REST API as it adopted the following ideas: Level 1: Resources (e.g. a resource-aware URL layout, contrasted with an opaque URL layout as in XML-RPC) Level 2: HTTP Verbs (using GET, POST, DELETE, etc. properly) Level 3: Hypermedia Controls (e.g. links) Level 3 is where the uniform interface comes in, which is why this level is considered the most mature and truly "The Glory of REST"

the creator economy had grown into a matured, diversified, $100 billion business.

The well-known core of any YouTuber’s income is Adsense—the system that serves the ads before, during, or after videos. This hypothetical channel could expect to earn about $4,000 in Adsense revenue for their million views, based on a typical revenue per mille rate, or RPM, of $4—meaning they earn $4 per thousand views. However, there is wild inconsistency on Adsense RPM’s from creator to creator.

I think actually the most critical component is going to be leveraging existing security mechanisms that have been built for resilience and incorporating those into these devices, which is actually what I'm building right now. That's what Thistle Technologies is doing, we're trying to help companies get to that place where they've got modern security mechanisms in their devices without having to build all the infrastructure that's required in order to deliver that. 

Compare this amount of compute to a Raspberry Pi 4, a $45 single-board computer which has four processors running at 1.5 GHz.  Each core has 2 ALUs and it will take 4 instructions to perform a 256 bit addition, as the basic unit for the Raspberry Pi (and most other modern computers) is 64 bits.  So each core has a peak performance of 750,000,000 adds per second for a total peak of 3,000,000,000 adds per second.  Put bluntly, the Ethereum “world computer” has roughly 1/5,000 of the compute power of a Raspberry Pi 4!

A distributed system is composed of multiple, identified, and nameable entities.  DNS is an example of such a distributed system, as there is a hierarchy of responsibilities and business relationships to create a specialized database with a corresponding cryptographic PKI.  Similarly the web is a distributed system, where computation is not only spread amongst various servers but the duty of computation is shared between the browser and the server within a single web page.A decentralized system, on the other hand, dispenses with the notion of identified entities.  Instead everyone can participate and the participants are assumed to be mutually antagonistic, or at least maximizing their profit.  Since decentralized systems depend on some form of voting, the potential for an attacker stuffing the ballot box is always at the forefront.  After all, an attacker could just create a bunch of sock-puppets, called “sibyls”, and get all the votes they want.

Of course letting arbitrary code potentially run forever wouldn’t work.  So instead any program is run for only a limited number of instructions until it either completes or is terminated. The measure of the amount of compute is called “gas”, with various instructions and operations costing a different amount of gas to process.  The total cost of a transaction is the amount of gas consumed times the gas price.

So what does the supposed “web3” add to this vision?

Currently it will cost me roughly $20 a month to participate in this distributed computing system.

As such, to ensure that Minecraft players have a safe and inclusive experience, blockchain technologies are not permitted to be integrated inside our Minecraft client and server applications nor may they be utilized to create NFTs associated with any in-game content, including worlds, skins, persona items, or other mods. We will also be paying close attention to how blockchain technology evolves over time to ensure that the above principles are withheld and determine whether it will allow for more secure experiences or other practical and inclusive applications in gaming. However, we have no plans of implementing blockchain technology into Minecraft right now.

NFTs are not inclusive of all our community and create a scenario of the haves and the have-nots. The speculative pricing and investment mentality around NFTs takes the focus away from playing the game and encourages profiteering, which we think is inconsistent with the long-term joy and success of our players.

We have these rules to ensure that Minecraft remains a community where everyone has access to the same content. NFTs, however, can create models of scarcity and exclusion that conflict with our Guidelines and the spirit of Minecraft.

While we are in the process of updating our Minecraft Usage Guidelines to offer more precise guidance on new technologies, we wanted to take the opportunity to share our view that integrations of NFTs with Minecraft are generally not something we will support or allow. Let’s have a closer look!

the company is announcing the release of a three-part open source toolkit to quickly get the technology into developers’ hands and out in the wild. Adobe’s new open source tools include a JavaScript SDK for building ways to display the content credentials in browsers, a command line utility and a Rust SDK for creating desktop apps, mobile apps and other experiences to create, view and verify embedded content credentials.

If we can rightly identify the seeds (or spores) we will know what type of conditions they will thrive in. In similar ways, some people need different care, handling and environment to thrive. Perhaps with the right conditions, they too can make contributions to the world in small but meaningful ways – and who can truly judge the true magnitude of something?

State-level lobbying by Scientific Games in the 1980s was critical to the expansion of the lottery from one state, New Hampshire in 1964, to nearly every state. Scientific Games just sold its lottery business to Toronto-based private equity firm Brookfield Business Partners LP for nearly $6 billion. Future profits will benefit Brookfield CEO Bruce Flatt, who is worth $4.5 billion, according to Forbes.

Standifer — and millions of players like her — lose about 35 cents for every dollar they spend."Yesterday I spent like $130 and I won like $85," Standifer said, meaning she lost $45.Those losses — $29 billion a year nationally — are why lotteries exist. The losses fund government programs and enrich others, including a Canadian private equity billionaire and a Japanese convenience-store conglomerate.

Driven by more than a half-billion dollars in annual ad spending, lottery ticket sales have grown from $47 billion to $82 billion since 2005, according to La Fleur's 2022 World Lottery Almanac. In 10 states, lotteries generate more revenue than corporate income taxes.

Many of these services in the West started on PCs. In China, most people’s first experience of the internet was on a mobile device, and users had no expectations about how it should work, says Feifei Liu, a researcher with user-experience consulting firm Nielsen Norman Group. The simultaneous rise of WeChat and the boom in smartphone adoption in China created a different set of expectations for what a single app should be able to do, she adds.

Today, WeChat occupies a niche similar to Apple’s App Store or Google’s Play Store in the rest of the world. More than one million apps are accessible within WeChat. But unlike western app stores, WeChat tries to only make them available when a user needs them, rather than making them easily accessible via a single search interface, says Mr. Shimota.

The definition of “super app” is fuzzy, but companies and their leaders most often use it to describe a state of cramming ever more features and functions into their apps—often ones adjacent to, but distinct from, their core functionality. So, for example, a financial-tech super app might start with payments and bolt on buy-now-pay-later, cryptocurrency and in-app storefronts. For social media, it could mean incorporating things like shopping. And for a delivery and ride-hailing company, it might mean adding new modes of transportation or other categories of goods for drivers to convey.

So Terra Labs concocted the existence of an interesting valuable thing. They wrote a program using their slow database called Anchor. Anchor was an automated program to allow moneylending. There are many of these in DeFi land.

In principle, you could use stablecoins as money, like how you use deposits as money. Stablecoins are not used like money; rather than facilitating almost the entire diversity of transactions in the economy, they are overwhelmingly used for a few niche use cases.

From society’s perspective, the wide availability of cheap credit is generally considered a good thing, as it allows for productive investment, consumption smoothing over consumers’ lifetimes, and a form of risk-pooling not entire dissimilar to public support or insurance programs. (It is underappreciated that consumer credit is, effectively, one of the largest welfare programs in the United States. Chargeoffs of e.g. credit card debt effectively transfer a private benefit to the defaulting consumer in return for a diffuse cost to the rest of the public, mediated by the financial industry; the net amount of them is almost as much as food stamps.)

Crypto is a good example, to avoid stigmatizing developing nations. There is an exchange rate, constantly changing, between the stablecoins USDC and USDT, between both of those coins (independently) and the dollars they theoretically represent. Different rates prevail in different places and different transaction sizes. This makes stablecoin-settled commerce very rare relative to money-settled commerce.

anything is money if substantially everyone looking at the money both agrees that it is money and agrees at the exchange rate for it

You don’t deposit a $20 bill. You purchase a $20 deposit, coincidentally using a piece of paper with the same number on it. The deposit is a liability (a debt) of the bank to you. The bill which you gave the bank in return for the deposit is now theirs, the same as if you had bought a cup of coffee from Starbucks. On their balance sheet, it is now an asset.

Schelling point

On a conference call, the company reiterated that spam accounts were well under 5% of users who are served advertising, a figure that has been unchanged in its public filings since 2013.Human reviewers manually examine thousands of Twitter accounts at random and use a combination of public and private data in order to calculate and report to shareholders the proportion of spam and bot accounts on the service, Twitter said.

Twitter (TWTR.N) removes more than 1 million spam accounts each day, executives told reporters in a briefing on Thursday

One of the arguments that we hear is, oh, well, physical books wear out. And and so that's really a different situation than digital books or scans. And I find that pretty laughable when you look at the costs involved with maintaining digital files. In fact, they're extremely expensive and extremely complicated to maintain the integrity of those files.

National Emergency Library

emergency temporary access service

The Copyright Act sets up this balance of rights as between rights holders and users. And one of the things that users get is the ability to control use of particular copies that they buy. So this is where the doctrine for sale comes in.

some characteristics of how to make CDL as close to that physical, legal and economic situation as possible

the text of Section 106, those exclusive rights that copyright holders get

Controlled digital lending is a system that enables a library to circulate a digitized title in place of a physical one in a controlled manner.

never open the browser without knowing where it's going and i never get caught up in that stupid trick where you know you start going to so you don't need to and you forget why you're on the internet

Who's responsible if the link between the NFT and the reference material breaks? Who's responsible if the blockchain forks and your revenue stream is then cut off? These are bedrock ideas of product liability, on top of which it's not at all clear, from the blockchain itself, that the thing isn't functioning.

Under this test, a transaction is deemed an investment contract if a person,

Only humans can create art that is copyrightable. So by extension, if a machine is deemed to be the author of a work, no one can exercise a copyright in that particular artwork. And in the context of NFTs, there's untold numbers of works that are touted as being created by computers that's deemed to be a feature, not a bug.

If you buy an NBA Top Shot, let's say of a particular clip of something that happened in the NBA, you can't enforce that against someone who is displaying that piece of video somewhere else. And on top of that, the NBA can prevent you from displaying that particular video clip, if you're displaying it in a way that conflicts with the license that was purchased through NBA Top Shots

NFTs do not supplant copyright law, not even close. NFTs are bound by normal everyday rules of copyright.

these smart contracts,

if you buy an NFT that doesn't have any sale terms whatsoever,

you can buy a Bored Ape NFT on OpenSea, which is a large marketplace for NFTs. When you do, the Bored Ape Yacht Club says that you get access to certain perks. These include getting access to their discord server of like-minded purchasers of Bored Apes.

When you initially buy an NBA Top Shot, you get limited rights to use and view the NBA Top Shot, only within the NBA Top Shots platform. But here's the thing. NBA Top Shots is a private marketplace. The NFTs only have any real value when you use the walled garden of NBA Top Shots, you have to use their app or their website

When you're buying an NFT, the real thing that you're buying is bound by the contract between the buyer and the seller, those are the primary purchaser and seller. There are some times when there is no contract, we'll talk about that. But theoretically at least, the value of the NFT is decided by the contract terms between the buyer and the seller of the NFT. But one of the huge fundamental problems that we'll talk about a lot in a second,

These programs are called smart contracts, which is misleading because look, here's an example of a smart contract. There's no legal language in there. It doesn't function as a legal document.

Feature development typically focuses on improving reliability, performance, or utilization, which often reduces toil as a second-order effect. We share this 50% goal because toil tends to expand if left unchecked and can quickly fill 100% of everyone’s time.

Toil is the kind of work tied to running a production service that tends to be manual, repetitive, automatable, tactical, devoid of enduring value, and that scales linearly as a service grows. Not every task deemed toil has all these attributes, but the more closely work matches one or more of the following descriptions, the more likely it is to be toil

Cede, as part of DTCC, is the actual owner of pretty much all publicly issued stock in the US. This arrangement was put into place so that stockbrokers didn’t have to send around paper certificates all the time just to trade. The stocks stay at Cede, and brokers exchange rights to those stocks held at Cede. When you buy shares in a stock, you hold an entitlement, to part of an entitlement held by your broker, to stock held by Cede. Cede owns the actual stock, but you have beneficial ownership of your shares — you are the shareholder who can vote at general meetings and receive dividends on the shares.

“Smart contract” is a fancy term for small computer programs that run directly on a blockchain. Bridges work by having a smart contract on both the blockchains. The bridge uses a relay to transmit messages back and forth between the smart contracts on each of the two blockchains

The nature-of-work factor generally focuses on the degree of expressiveness of the plaintiff's work. Artistic and fanciful works tend to be highly expressive, so it is generally more difficult to win fair use defenses involving such works. Fact-intensive and highly functional works tend, by contrast, to have a lesser quantum of expressive content. Hence, fair use may be easier to establish in cases involving such works.

Stoller acknowledged that there might be a “genuine leap of technical capacity” brought about by crypto, but he hasn’t seen it for himself. The rampant and accruing amount of fraud involving crypto is also an indicator of intent to Stoller. “If blockchain proponents want to advance their technology, they would eagerly seek to get rid of the fraud, but I don't see that happening,” he said. “That signals to me the fraud is the point.” Or more specifically, as Kelsey Hightower argues, money is the point: “It’s not like someone looked at blockchain and said, ‘Oh, my God, we finally have a better database for storing transactions!’” Instead, what made blockchain’s big promises so compelling were stories of people turning a small amount of money into a lot. “And in our society, we equate morality to money,” Hightower said.

To me, the problem isn’t that blockchain systems can be made slightly less awful than they are today. The problem is that they don’t do anything their proponents claim they do. In some very important ways, they’re not secure. They doesn’t replace trust with code; in fact, in many ways they are far less trustworthy than non-blockchain systems. They’re not decentralized, and their inevitable centralization is harmful because it’s largely emergent and ill-defined. They still have trusted intermediaries, often with more power and less oversight than non-blockchain systems. They still require governance. They still require regulation. (These things are what I wrote about here.) The problem with blockchain is that it’s not an improvement to any system—and often makes things worse.

In other words, transaction reversibility is not about the ledger, but rather about the transaction rules that a currency uses. A reversible currency requires that someone anoint this trusted party (or trusted parties) and that they use their powers to freeze/burn/transact currency in ways that are at odds with the recorded owners’ intentions. And indeed, this is a capability that many tokens now possess, thanks to the development of sophisticated smart contract systems like Ethereum, that allow parties to design currencies with basically any set of transaction rules they want.

Beyond proof-of-stake, there are other technologies in deployment, such as the proof-of-time-and-space construction used by Chia, or more centralized proof-of-authority systems.

Proof-of-work is not the only technology we have on which to build consensus protocols. Today, many forward-looking networks are deploying proof-of-stake (PoS) for their consensus. In these systems, your “voting power” in the network is determined by your ownership stake in some valuable on-chain asset, such as a new or existing electronic token. Since cryptocurrency has coincidentally spent a lot of time distributing tokens, this means that new protocols can essentially “cut out the middleman” and simply use coin ownership directly as a proxy for voting power, rather than requiring operators to sell their coins to buy electricity and mining hardware. Proof-of-stake systems are not perfect: they still lead to some centralization of power, since in this paradigm the rich tend to get richer. However it’s hard to claim that the result will be worse than the semi-centralized mess that proof-of-work mining has turned into.

When the digital music industry was getting started, they invented a new form of quantum indeterminacy. When a customer paid $0.99 for an Itunes track, they were engaged in a license. When that transaction was recorded on the artist's royalty statement, it was a sale. Like Schroedinger's alive/dead cat, digital music was in superposition, caught in a zone between a sale and a license.

sex workers are the vanguard of every technological revolution. What gives? Well, think about the other groups that make up that vanguard – who else is an habitual early adopter? At least four other groups also take the lead on new tech: political radicals, kids, drug users, and terrorists. There's some overlap among members of these groups, but their most salient shared trait isn't personnel, it's exclusion. Kids, drug users, political radicals, sex workers and terrorists are all unwelcome in mainstream society. They struggle to use its money, its communications tools, and its media channels.

The kids who left Facebook for Instagram weren't looking for the Next Big Thing; they were looking for a social media service that their parents and teachers didn't use.

the creation of an ebook from aprint book falls under the author’s exclusive right to create derivative works. Moreover, printbooks and ebooks have very different characteristics – ebooks can be reproduced and distributedinstantaneously and at minimal cost. Internet Archive has no right to take those benefits foritself without compensating the rightsholders. While Internet Archive claims in a recent letter tothe Court to be “improving the efficiency of delivering content” – as if it is the only entitycapable of delivering ebooks to library patrons – Plaintiffs have invested heavily to create now-thriving markets for library ebooks.

We write on behalf of plaintiffs Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins PublishersLLC, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and Penguin Random House LLC (the “Plaintiffs”) to request apre-motion summary judgment conference pursuant to Individual Practice 2(B).

I write on behalf of Defendant Internet Archive pursuant to Paragraph 2-B of Your Honor’s IndividualPractices to request a pre-motion conference on a motion for summary judgment in the above matter.

As to the second factor, “the nature of the copyrighted work,” this factor “has rarely played a significantrole in the determination of a fair use dispute,” Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 220 (2d Cir.2015), and this case is no exception.

may a nonprofit library that owns a lawfully made andacquired print copy of a book loan a digital copy of that book to a library patron, if the library (1) loansthe book to only one patron at a time for each non-circulating print copy it owns (thus maintaining aone-to-one “owned-to-loaned” ratio); (2) implements technical protections that prevent access to thebook by anyone other than the current borrower; and (3) limits its digital lending to books published inthe past five or more years? This describes Internet Archive’s implementation of a practice known as“Controlled Digital Lending,” or “CDL.”

All wireless devices have small manufacturing imperfections in the hardware that are unique to each device. These fingerprints are an accidental byproduct of the manufacturing process. These imperfections in Bluetooth hardware result in unique distortions, which can be used as a fingerprint to track a specific device. For Bluetooth, this would allow an attacker to circumvent anti-tracking techniques such as constantly changing the address a mobile device uses to connect to Internet networks. 

Dall-E delivers ten images for each request, and when you see results that contain sensitive or biased content, you can flag them to OpenAI for review. The question then becomes whether OpenAI wants Dall-E's results to reflect society's approximate reality or some idealized version. If an occupation is majority male or female, for instance, and you ask Dall-E to illustrate someone doing that job, the results can either reflect the actual proportion in society, or some even split between genders. They can also account for race, weight, and other factors. So far, OpenAI is still researching how exactly to structure these results. But as it learns, it knows it has choices to make.

an employee of OpenAI — which created it — asked Dall-E to draw a "Rabbit prison warden, digital art," and, within twenty seconds, it produced ten new illustrations.

Tech isn't a bunch of toys. It's tools to create a world. We all know this is true, and we need to start acting like it.

distributing power creates a thicker level of civil society. And that's essential to resisting old power.

Tim Berners-Lee solid initiative

Private tech companies have greater power to influence, censor and control the lives of ordinary people than any government on earth

And when corporations start to dominate the Internet, they became de-facto governments. Slowly but surely, the tech companies began to act like old power. They use the magic of tech to consolidate their own power, using money to increase their influence, blocking the redistribution of power from the entrenched elites to ordinary people.

We did not think the threat would come from the inside, that it would look and sound like us. And when I say look and sound like us, I mean exactly that.

Nothing could have confirm the righteousness of our faith or the rightness of our cause. More than the Arab Spring

By moving and changing faster than government could keep up.

the real enemy would be government, the bastion of traditional power. Old power. Dark suits. Heavy badges.

We were distributing power and not hoarding it. So one of the things we liked about the new tech, our new tech was that it was a powerful tool that traditional power didn't understand. And in many cases, they didn't even know about it. So we were free to do with it what we wanted

And that identity, like most of us was white, male, American, and vaguely libertarian. That's how the Internet got personified in those early days. Again, this wasn't everyone If you gathered all of us to talk about those early days, the women, the people of color, they would tell different stories. But it was most of us.

what humor does with advocacy is it softens the edges

now we have to maintain a level of professionalism because we have a very unique role in society people we have their lives their eyes and our hands and and so we do have a level of professionalism that we need to maintain

joking helps us acknowledge and integrate painful absurdities

what humor does is you can take that rearrange it add humor to it deal with it the way you

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.

the one thing that you have to keep conveying to people about the consequences of surveillance is that it's all very well to say that you have nothing to hide, but when you're spied upon, everybody that's connected to you gets spied upon. And if we don't push back, the most vulnerable people in society, the people that actually keep really massive violations of human rights and illegality in check, they're the people who get most affected.

over the past decade and change a dynamic ecosystem has developed around cryptocurrencies and blockchains. And it’s constantly getting more complicated. We’ve now got non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, unique digital bits purchased with crypto that have mostly been associated with weird pieces of digital art and are an arena that looks very much like a bubble. There are stablecoins, cryptocurrencies that are supposed to be less volatile, pegged to something like the US dollar. There’s also the burgeoning world of decentralized finance, or DeFi, which tries to replicate a lot of the financial system but without intermediaries, and there are decentralized autonomous organizations, or DAOs, essentially internet collectives. Now, much of this is falling under the still-nascent umbrella of Web3, a relatively fuzzy reimagining of the internet on blockchains.

What emerged was a picture that was simultaneously murky and clarifying, in that there’s not one good answer. Some of what it does is promising; a lot of what it does — even boosters admit — is trash, and trash that’s costing some people a lot of money. This probably isn’t the death knell for crypto — it’s gone through plenty of boom and bust cycles in the past. It would be unwise to definitively say that crypto has no chance of being a game changer; it would also be disingenuous to claim it is now.

The effect or “value” of the EJC platform has certainly shifted over time. While it was initially created to solve an access delivery problem, in 2022, the value still lies with the ownership of the content. Because of savvy contract negotiations, if OhioLINK should cancel any packages, members will retain access to the locally stored backfiles. Members would never have to negotiate with publishers/vendors for post-cancellation “access fees” to those resources.

OhioLINK also had the foresight to add a set of core online research databases (which at this time were only indexes).

Over the next four years, Ohio’s public 4-year institutions, plus University of Dayton and Case Western Reserve University collaborated to develop the statewide consortial lending system.

the Ohio Board of Regents (1987) (BOR, now known as the Ohio Department of Higher Education)

create a book depository system for off-site storage of library materials

This work is still being done on platforms like Facebook and Reddit. But unlike the sysops who enabled the flourishing of early online communities, the volunteer moderators on today’s platforms do not own the infrastructures they oversee. They do not share in the profits generated by their labor. They cannot alter the underlying software or implement new technical interventions or social reforms. Instead of growing in social status, the sysop seems to have been curtailed by the providers of platforms. If there is a future after Facebook, it will be led by a revival of the sysop, a reclamation of the social and economic value of community maintenance and moderation.

The modem world shows us that other business models are possible. BBS sysops loved to boast about “paying their own bills.” For some, the BBS was an expensive hobby, a money pit not unlike a vintage car. But many sysops sought to make their BBSs self-sustaining. Absent angel investors or government contracts, BBSs became sites of commercial experimentation. Many charged a fee for access—experimenting with tiered rates and per-minute or per-byte payment schemes. There were also BBSs organized like a social club. Members paid “dues” to keep the hard drive spinning. Others formed nonprofit corporations, soliciting tax-exempt donations from their users. Even on the hobby boards, sysops sometimes passed the virtual hat, asking everybody for a few bucks to buy a new modem or knock out a big telephone bill.

In the days of Usenet and BBSs and Minitel, cyberspace was defined by the interconnection of thousands of small-scale local systems, each with its own idiosyncratic culture and technical design, a dynamic assemblage of overlapping communication systems held together by digital duct tape and a handshake. It looked and felt different depending on where you plugged in your modem.

Forgetting has high stakes. As wireless broadband approaches ubiquity in many parts of North America, the stories we tell about the origins of the internet are more important than ever. Faced with crises such as censorship and surveillance, policy makers and technologists call on a mythic past for guidance. In times of uncertainty, the most prominent historical figures—the “forefathers” and the “innovators”—are granted a special authority to make normative claims about the future of telecommunications. As long as the modem world is excluded from the internet’s origin story, the everyday amateur will have no representation in debates over policy and technology, no opportunity to advocate for a different future.

Instead of emphasizing the role of popular innovation and amateur invention, the dominant myths in internet history focus on the trajectory of a single military-funded experiment in computer networking: the Arpanet. Though fascinating, the Arpanet story excludes the everyday culture of personal computing and grassroots internetworking. In truth, the histories of Arpanet and BBS networks were interwoven—socially and materially—as ideas, technologies, and people flowed between them

The more customers that a cable company served, the stronger their negotiating position with content providers; the more studios and types of content that a content provider controlled the stronger their negotiating position with cable providers. The end result were a few dominant cable providers (Comcast, Charter, Cox, Altice, Mediacom) and a few dominant content companies (Disney, Viacom, NBC Universal, Time Warner, Fox), tussling back-and-forth over a very profitable pie.

Within these snippets is everything that makes the cable business so compelling: Cable is in high demand because it provides the means to get what customers most highly value. Cable works best both technologically and financially when it has a geographic monopoly. Cable creates demand for new supply; technological advances enable more supply, which creates more demand.

The aforementioned satellite, though, led to the creation of national TV stations, first HBO, and then WTCG, an independent television station in Atlanta, Georgia, owned by Ted Turner. Turner realized he could buy programming at local rates, but sell advertising at national rates via cable operators eager to feed their customers’ hunger for more stations. Turner soon launched a cable only channel devoted to nothing but news; he called it the Cable News Network — CNN for short (WTCG would later be renamed TBS).

Jerrold Electronics, meanwhile, spun off one of the cable systems it built in Tupelo, Mississippi to an entrepreneur named Ralph Roberts; Roberts proceeded to systematically buy up community cable systems across the country, moving the company’s headquarters to Philadelphia and renaming it to Comcast Corporation (Roberts would eventually hand the business off to his son, Brian).

what if Tarlton could place an antenna further up the mountain in Summit Hill and run a cable to his shop?

VIN locks began in car-engines. Auto manufacturers started to put cheap microcontrollers into engine components and subcomponents. A mechanic could swap in a new part, but the engine wouldn’t recognize it — and the car wouldn’t drive — until an authorized technician entered an unlock code into a special tool connected to the car’s internal network.

The next time someone tells you “If you’re not paying for the product, you’re the product,” remember this. These farmers weren’t getting free, ad-supported tractors. Deere charges six figures for a tractor. But the farmers were still the product. The thing that determines whether you’re the product isn’t whether you’re paying for the product: it’s whether market power and regulatory forbearance allow the company to get away with selling you.

In a rush to show growth, Bolt often overstated its technological capability and misrepresented the number of merchants using its service, some of the people said. In presentations to investors, it included the names of customers before verifying whether those merchants were able to use its technology. For a time, a fraud detection product it was pitching to merchants was more dependent on manual review than Mr. Breslow implied, according to a former employee.

In July 2021, Wyoming became the first state in the country to explicitly codify rules around DAOs wishing to become domiciled in that jurisdiction. This rule change means that DAOs in Wyoming are considered a distinct form of limited liability company (LLC), which grants them a legal personality and confers a wide range of rights, such as limited liability for members. Without this protection, a DAO could be viewed as a general partnership, exposing its members to personal liability for any of the DAO’s obligations or actions. Each DAO must have a registered agent in Wyoming, and the agent must establish a physical address and maintain a register of names and addresses of the entity’s directors or individuals serving in a similar capacity.

Blockchains are immutable, which means once data is recorded, it can’t be removed. The idea that blockchains will be used to store user-generated data for services like social networks has enormous implications for user safety. If someone uses these platforms to harass and abuse others, such as by doxing, posting revenge pornography, uploading child sexual abuse material, or doing any number of other very serious things that platforms normally try to thwart with content-moderation teams, the protections that can be offered to users are extremely limited. The same goes for users who plagiarize artwork, spam, or share sensitive material like trade secrets. Even a user who themself posts something and then later decides they’d rather not have it online is stuck with it remaining on-chain indefinitely.

“The crisis for the Church is a crisis of discernment,” he said over lunch. “Discernment”—one’s basic ability to separate truth from untruth—“is a core biblical discipline. And many Christians are not practicing it.”

Prasad says that early tests of Nextdoor’s “constructive conversations” reminders have already been positive, though it has led to some decrease in overall engagement on the platform. “We think that it's still the right thing to do.”

Our goal: to encourage neighbors to conduct more mindful conversations. What if we can be proactive and intervene before the conversations spark more abusive responses? Oftentimes unkind comments beget more unkind comments. 90% of abusive comments appear in a thread with another abusive comment, and 50% of abusive comments appear in a thread with 13+ other abusive comments.* By preventing some of these comments before they happen, we can avoid the resulting negative feedback loops.

This model was tasked with predicting whether a future comment on a thread will be abusive. This is a difficult task without any features provided on the target comment. Despite the challenges of this task, the model had a relatively high AUC over 0.83, and was able to achieve double digit precision and recall at certain thresholds.

AUC

For somes cases such as misinformation and discrimination, these reports are sent directly to our trained Neighborhood Operation Staff to review.

The multiple dimensions of this conversation created some complexity around how we define each comment’s parent node and traverse along the parent nodes to recreate the conversation thread.

When fed information about a target individual’s mobile phone interactions, as well as their contacts’ interactions, AI can correctly pick the target out of more than 40,000 anonymous mobile phone service subscribers more than half the time, researchers report January 25 in Nature Communications.

For one test, the researchers trained the neural network with data from an unidentified mobile phone service that detailed 43,606 subscribers’ interactions over 14 weeks. This data included each interaction’s date, time, duration, type (call or text), the pseudonyms of the involved parties and who initiated the communication.

those community driven organizations were where a lot of us learned how to do small “D” democracy. We learned how to run a meeting. We learned how to manage a budget. We learned how to host a group discussion. We learned how to get people to work together to do things. We've lost some of that. I think one of the best ways that people are learning those small d democratic skills are doing things like being moderators on Reddit, are trying to figure out how to run virtual spaces that they actually have control over.

I don't think you can responsibly run a social network these days, without some way of dealing with things like child sexual abuse imagery. Whichever lines you want to draw, maybe it's around terrorism. Certainly it's around child abuse imagery. There have to be some central resources where you can put up fingerprints of your images, instead of say, "I need to take this down." Even in the circumstances that I'm talking about, there's no way to deal with a community that decides that child porn's a great thing and we're going to trade it back and forth, without having some of the central resources that you can work against. If you really were working for this decentralized world, some combination of the mandatory interop without too high level of it, and some sort of those collective resources that we in a field all work together on maintaining and feeding. With auditability, I understand that all those resources need to be audited and checked, so you don't end up being an irresponsible blacklist.

The only problem with it is that when you leave Facebook, your data's really only useful if you're going to another Facebook. Leaving is not actually the interesting thing. It's being able to interoperate with each of the small blocks of content.

digital public infrastructure, this idea that maybe our public spaces should actually be paid for with public dollars

If we, as human beings are allowed to change and evolve, we have to find some way to be able to outgrow our data doppelgängers. It's not just that these things are creepy. It's that they're literally holding us to our worst selves, even when we try to change and work our way through the future.

I don't think that hateful speech disappears in the model that I'm talking about.  Will people build horrible hateful spaces within the architecture that I'm trying to design? Yeah, absolutely. My hope is that most of us will avoid them. My hope is that those spaces will be less successful in recruiting and pulling people into those spaces.

We've had three things happen simultaneously: we've moved from an open web where people start lots of small projects to one where it really feels like if you're not on a Facebook or a YouTube, you're not going to reach a billion users, and at that point, why is it worth doing this? Second, we've developed a financial model of surveillance capitalism, where the default model for all of these tools is we're going to collect as much information as we can about you and monetize your attention. Then we've developed a model for financing these, which is venture capital, where we basically say it is your job to grow as quickly as possible, to get to the point where you have a near monopoly on a space and you can charge monopoly rents. Get rid of two aspects of that equation and things are quite different.

we both want things that are smaller in terms of the manageability of the size of it. But the other thing you said was really important is we want to be able to skip between them. We don't want to all be locked in small little walled gardens where we can't go from one place to another.

Scale's hard. Having a set of speech rules that work for 10 people around a dinner table, that can be hard in it of itself. Everyone can think of a Christmas meal or a Thanksgiving meal with someone who's really politically out of line with everyone else and the Thanksgiving rules of no politics around the table. But that's 10 people. Once you start trying to scale that to India /Kashmir, or Palestinianians/ Israelis, or Rohingya/ Bama you're really wrestling with some questions that frankly, most of the people involved with these companies are not qualified to address. The only solution I've been able to come to out of that is a whole lot of small spaces. All of us moving between them and some of us taking responsibility for governing, at least some of the spaces that we interact in.

She's built a whole company around adding features to Twitter that Twitter, frankly, should have.

Reimagining looks at this and says, "Wait a second, why are we trying to have a conversation in a space that's linking 300 million people? Maybe this isn't where I want to have my conversation. And you know what? I don't actually want my conversation moderated by poorly paid people in the Philippines who are flipping through a three ring binder to figure out if speech is acceptable. What if we built social media around communities of people who want to interact with one another and want to take responsibility for governing those spaces?"

So we've gone from worrying about government censoring the net, to worrying about platform censoring the net, to now in some cases, worrying about platforms not doing enough to censor the net, this is not how we should be running a digital public sphere. 

I got sober about four years ago, but the internet knows me as an alcoholic and there is in those many records out there, the fact that I have clicked on alcohol ads. I have bought alcohol online. The internet in a very real way doesn't want me to stop drinking. The fact that they know that I like to drink is actually very lucrative for them. When you think about this, this creates a really interesting ethical conundrum. It's not just that these things are creepy. It's that they're literally holding us to our worst selves, even when we try to change and work our way through the future.

The software trains on 100 hours of footage so each camera can learn “normal” behavior, and then it flags anything deemed out of the ordinary. Each camera can also be configured with additional hard-coded rules. For example, it can be programmed with barriers that people should never cross and zones where cars should never stop.

The bulk of Vumacam’s subscribers have thus far been private security companies like AI Surveillance, which supply anything from armed guards to monitoring for a wide range of clients, including schools, businesses, and residential neighborhoods. This was always the plan: Vumacam CEO Croock started AI Surveillance with Nichol shortly after founding Vumacam and then stepped away to avoid conflicts with other Vumacam customers.

We still have scientific papers; we still send them off to peer reviewers; we still have editors who give the ultimate thumbs up or down as to whether a paper is published in their journal.

Having been printed on paper since the very first scientific journal was inaugurated in 1665

A platform can use all available signals to judge who should have promotion and privileges on the platform, including giving more access and amplification to those who have shown a consistent history of positively engaging with others. And those who misbehave on the platform would be managed with a community management strategy that's informed by the principles of restorative justice, incentivizing good behaviors while also taking into account a person's history of community contributions on other platforms as well.

We're not currently seeing a debate about "free speech". What we're actually witnessing is just a debate about who controls the norms of a social network, and who gets free promotion from that network.

Given the difficulty of regulating every online post, especially in a country that protects most forms of speech, it seems far more prudent to focus most of our efforts on building an educated and resilient public that can spot and then ignore disinformation campaigns

This practice leavespatrons’ search histories, search results, and full content of browsed pages open to covertsurveillance via packet-sniffing applications such as the free cross-platform Wireshark.

This list should be preferred to the lists mostbrowser ad-blocking plugins use, as it is limited only to trackers and doesnot include advertisers and other organizations that do not employtracking techniques.

the privacy of an e‑resource may be considered physical-equivalent only when apatron using an information-equivalent physical resource would enjoy no more privacythan the same patron using the e‑resource

A systematic decrease in the privacy of e‑resource use relative to use ofphysical materials provides neither equitable service nor equitable information access topatrons with little or no choice but to use information in electronic form. These patronsinclude:

Redesigning democracy for the digital age is far beyond my abilities, but I can suggest three categories of reforms––three goals that must be achieved if democracy is to remain viable in the post-Babel era. We must harden democratic institutions so that they can withstand chronic anger and mistrust, reform social media so that it becomes less socially corrosive, and better prepare the next generation for democratic citizenship in this new age.

This, I believe, is what happened to many of America’s key institutions in the mid-to-late 2010s. They got stupider en masse because social media instilled in their members a chronic fear of getting darted. The shift was most pronounced in universities, scholarly associations, creative industries, and political organizations at every level (national, state, and local), and it was so pervasive that it established new behavioral norms backed by new policies seemingly overnight. The new omnipresence of enhanced-virality social media meant that a single word uttered by a professor, leader, or journalist, even if spoken with positive intent, could lead to a social-media firestorm, triggering an immediate dismissal or a drawn-out investigation by the institution. Participants in our key institutions began self-censoring to an unhealthy degree, holding back critiques of policies and ideas—even those presented in class by their students—that they believed to be ill-supported or wrong.

Across eight studies, Bor and Petersen found that being online did not make most people more aggressive or hostile; rather, it allowed a small number of aggressive people to attack a much larger set of victims.

The many analysts, including me, who had argued that Trump could not win the general election were relying on pre-Babel intuitions, which said that scandals such as the Access Hollywood tape (in which Trump boasted about committing sexual assault) are fatal to a presidential campaign. But after Babel, nothing really means anything anymore––at least not in a way that is durable and on which people widely agree.

But that essay continues on to a less quoted yet equally important insight, about democracy’s vulnerability to triviality. Madison notes that people are so prone to factionalism that “where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.”

This new game encouraged dishonesty and mob dynamics: Users were guided not just by their true preferences but by their past experiences of reward and punishment, and their prediction of how others would react to each new action. One of the engineers at Twitter who had worked on the “Retweet” button later revealed that he regretted his contribution because it had made Twitter a nastier place. As he watched Twitter mobs forming through the use of the new tool, he thought to himself, “We might have just handed a 4-year-old a loaded weapon.”

Before 2009, Facebook had given users a simple timeline––a never-ending stream of content generated by their friends and connections, with the newest posts at the top and the oldest ones at the bottom. This was often overwhelming in its volume, but it was an accurate reflection of what others were posting. That began to change in 2009, when Facebook offered users a way to publicly “like” posts with the click of a button. That same year, Twitter introduced something even more powerful: the “Retweet” button, which allowed users to publicly endorse a post while also sharing it with all of their followers. Facebook soon copied that innovation with its own “Share” button, which became available to smartphone users in 2012. “Like” and “Share” buttons quickly became standard features of most other platforms.Shortly after its “Like” button began to produce data about what best “engaged” its users, Facebook developed algorithms to bring each user the content most likely to generate a “like” or some other interaction, eventually including the “share” as well. Later research showed that posts that trigger emotions––especially anger at out-groups––are the most likely to be shared.

Once social-media platforms had trained users to spend more time performing and less time connecting, the stage was set for the major transformation, which began in 2009: the intensification of viral dynamics.

Social scientists have identified at least three major forces that collectively bind together successful democracies: social capital (extensive social networks with high levels of trust), strong institutions, and shared stories. Social media has weakened all three.

Babel is a metaphor for what some forms of social media have done to nearly all of the groups and institutions most important to the country’s future—and to us as a people.

It’s been clear for quite a while now that red America and blue America are becoming like two different countries claiming the same territory, with two different versions of the Constitution, economics, and American history. But Babel is not a story about tribalism; it’s a story about the fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families.

The fire hose was like in early Facebook days, when you saw the posts of everyone who was in your network in the order in which they were posted and that was the end of the story. I remember first starting to become clued in to the fact that that wasn’t the way it was working anymore, circa 2011, when I was seeing a lot more stupid stuff, and a lot more stuff that was clearly nudging me in one direction or another, rather than giving me an autonomous view of the landscape of information out there.

And therefore, to accept the dictates of algorithms in deciding what, for example, the next song we should listen to on Spotify is, accepting that it will be an algorithm that dictates this because we no longer recognize our non-algorithmic nature and we take ourselves to be the same sort of beings that don’t make spontaneous irreducible decisions about what song to listen to next, but simply outsource the duty for this sort of thing, once governed by inspiration now to a machine that is not capable of inspiration.

Algorithms in themselves are neither good nor bad. And they can be implemented even where you don’t have any technology to implement them. That is to say, you can run an algorithm on paper, and people have been doing this for many centuries. It can be an effective way of solving problems. So the “crisis moment” comes when the intrinsically neither-good-nor-bad algorithm comes to be applied for the resolution of problems, for logistical solutions, and so on in many new domains of human social life, and jumps the fence that contained it as focusing on relatively narrow questions to now structuring our social life together as a whole. That’s when the crisis starts.

a child had gone missing in our town and the FBI came to town to investigate immediately and had gone to the library. They had a tip and wanted to seize and search the library’s public computers. And the librarians told the FBI that they needed to get a warrant. The town was grief stricken and was enraged that the library would, at a time like that, demand that the FBI get a warrant. Like everyone in town was like, are you kidding me? A child is missing and you’re– and what? This town meeting afterwards, the library budget, of course, is up for discussion as it is every year, and the people were still really angry with the library, but a patron and I think trustee of the library – again, a volunteer, someone living in town – an elderly woman stood up and gave the most passionate defense of the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties to the people on the floor that I have ever witnessed.

The Internet owes its strength and success to a foundation of critical properties that, when combined, represent the Internet Way of Networking (IWN). This includes: an accessible Infrastructure with a common protocol, a layered architecture of interoperable building blocks, decentralized management and distributed routing, a common global identifier system, and a technology neutral, general-purpose network.

it’s important to note that this study specifically looked at political speech (the area that people are most concerned about, even though the reality is that this is a tiny fraction of what most content moderation efforts deal with), and it did find that a noticeably larger number of Republicans had their accounts banned than Democrats in their study (with a decently large sample size). However, that did not mean that it showed bias. Indeed, the study is quite clever, in that it corrected for generally agreed upon false information sharers — and the conclusion is that Twitter’s content moderation is biased against agreed-upon misinformation rather than political bias. It’s just that Republicans were shown to be much, much, much more willing to share such misinformation.

The situationwould be better for IPv6 under two conditions. First, if IPv6 couldoffer some popular new services that IPv4 cannot offer—that wouldprovide the former with additional products (and value) that thelatter does not have. Second, IPv6 should avoid competition withIPv4, at least until it has been widely deployed. That would be thecase if IPv6 was presented, not as a replacement to IPv4, but as“the second network layer protocol” that is required to support theprevious new services.

EvoArch suggests an additional reason that IPv4 has been so sta-ble over the last three decades. Recall that a large birth rate atthe layer above the waist can cause a lethal drop in the normalizedvalue of the kernel, if the latter is not chosen as substrate by thenew nodes. In the current Internet architecture, the waist is the net-work layer but the next higher layer (transport) is also very narrowand stable. So, the transport layer acts as an evolutionary shield forIPv4 because any new protocols at the transport layer are unlikelyto survive the competition with TCP and UDP. On the other hand,a large number of births at the layer above TCP or UDP (applica-tion protocols or specific applications) is unlikely to significantlyaffect the value of those two transport protocols because they al-ready have many products. In summary, the stability of the twotransport protocols adds to the stability of IPv4, by eliminating anypotential new transport protocols that could select a new networklayer protocol instead of IPv4.

To ensure more diversity in the middle layers, EvoArch suggests designing protocols that are largely non-overlapping in terms of services and functionality so that they do not compete with each other. The model suggests that protocols overlapping more than 70 percent of their functions start competing with each other.

The EvoArch model predicts the emergence of few powerful and old protocols in the middle layers, referred to as evolutionary kernels. The evolutionary kernels of the Internet architecture include IPv4 in the network layer, and TCP and the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) in the transport layer. These protocols provide a stable framework through which an always-expanding set of physical and data-link layer protocols, as well as new applications and services at the higher layers, can interoperate and grow. At the same time, however, those three kernel protocols have been difficult to replace, or even modify significantly.

All the evidence indicates that at the edge of the Internet lies an endless frontier of new potential applications and that new transmission technologies are eagerly absorbed as we have seen with the arrival of smartphones, 4G and 5G. The Internet continues to evolve as new ideas for its use and implementation bubble to the surface in the minds of inventors everywhere.

A higher layer protocol is encapsulated as payload in lower layers which provides a well-defined boundary between layers.  This boundary isolates a higher layer from lower layer implementation.

Save around $11.30 for every 100 miles driven in an EV instead of a gasoline fueled vehicle.

In the information age, filtering systems, driven by algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI), have become increasingly prominent, to such an extent that most of the information you encounter on the internet is now rearranged, ranked and filtered in some way. The trend towards a more customised information landscape is a result of multiple factors. But advances in technology and the fact that the body of information available online grows exponentially are important contributors.

As a woman in America in 2022, I will also observe the sexist hostility implicit in this viewpoint is unsurprising as it is insidious. Library work is one of a  small number of professions that have not been (completely) dominated by white men. Libraries are easy targets for this style of prescriptive opinion piece, and I challenge the desire by powerful men to tell others how to do their jobs because it reeks of a desire to dominate which is wholly inappropriate to the collective challenges we face.

Algospeak refers to code words or turns of phrase users have adopted in an effort to create a brand-safe lexicon that will avoid getting their posts removed or down-ranked by content moderation systems. For instance, in many online videos, it’s common to say “unalive” rather than “dead,” “SA” instead of “sexual assault,” or “spicy eggplant” instead of “vibrator.”

Much of the time, the blurred automation/enforcement distinction doesn’t matter. If you and I trust one another, and you send me a disappearing message in the mistaken belief that the thing preventing me from leaking it is the disappearing message bit and not my trustworthiness, that’s okay. The data still doesn’t leak, so we’re good.But eventually, the distinction turns into a fracture line.

But beyond this danger is a subtler — and more profound — one. We should not normalize the idea that our computers are there to control us, rather than to empower us.

Disappearing message apps take something humans are bad at (remembering to do a specific task at a specific time) and hand that job to a computer, which is really good at that.

I thought that the point of disappearing messages was to eat your cake and have it too, by allowing you to send a message to your adversary and then somehow deprive them of its contents. This is obviously a stupid idea.But the threat that Snapchat — and its disappearing message successors —was really addressing wasn’t communication between untrusted parties, it was automating data-retention agreements between trusted parties.

On the flip side, getting more than 700 sign-ups for two weeks in a row made operators eligible for an additional Orb. “Just tell people it’s free money,” one operator said a Worldcoin representative advised them.

Biometrics play an important role in colonial history: British administrators began experimenting with them in the 1850s as a way to control and intimidate their subjects in colonial India. Worldcoin’s activities in India, as well as other former British colonies such as Zimbabwe, where banks are banned from processing crypto transactions, and Kenya, where a new law forbids the transfer of biometrics data beyond the country’s borders, evoke Silicon Valley’s history of ignoring sensitive cultural issues and skirting regulations.

In Hypothes.is who are you annotating with?

Do you annotate differently in public view, self censoring or self editing?

Weinberg’s tweet announcing the change generated thousands of comments, many of them from conservative-leaning users who were furious that the company they turned to in order to get away from perceived Big Tech censorship was now the one doing the censoring. It didn’t help that the content DuckDuckGo was demoting and calling disinformation was Russian state media, whose side some in the right-wing contingent of DuckDuckGo’s users were firmly on.

even if it is necessary to adjust the policy over time as new risks and considerationsemerge.

Organizationsmust consider these threats before introducing new technologies, rather than the other way around

Students’ perspectives on their data may shift, however,when they are given opportunities to learn about the risks (Bowler et al., 2017), and there is astrong argument that such activities are a requirement for ethical practice in the use of data(Braunack-Mayer et al., 2020)

graduate attribute statements

This in turn means that data ownership, privacy, ethics andtransparency are becoming issues that are dealt with by corporate players, based inthe global North, rather than negotiated through local policies and theirapplication.

educators and administrators need to be wary about potential discriminations and asymmetriesresulting from continually categorising and normalising people as they work and study.

Surveillance technologies, especially those backed by significant amounts of venture capital, areoften underpinned by the same precarious labour and outsourcing practices that are critiqued fromwithin the academy