December 2017 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] "Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain"

by M. Fioretti

On 2017-12-24 10:47, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > Sarei curioso di leggere una risposta bene argomentata a questo > articolo... > > jc > > TEN YEARS IN, NOBODY HAS COME UP WITH A USE FOR BLOCKCHAIN FIY (Io NON l'ho ancora visto, per vari motivi) "Blockchain in practice ⛓️ Walmart tracing the source of sliced mangos:" https://twitter.com/swardley/status/947079659317071872 Marco -- http://mfioretti.com

Dec. 31, 2017

Re: [nexa] "Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain"

by Stefano Zacchiroli

On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 10:47:06AM +0100, J.C. DE MARTIN wrote: > Sarei curioso di leggere una risposta bene argomentata a questo articolo... Sono parecchio d'accordo con il contenuto dell'articolo, quindi *non* mi candido a contro-argomentare :-) Come piccolo aneddoto personale aggiungo che nell'ambito di Software Heritage abbiamo ricevuto parecchie richieste di integrazione con servizi che permettono di dichiarare prior art di documenti digitali senza disclosure, pubblicando fingerprint crittografici su blockchain (solitamente sidechain su bitcoin). Come osservato nell'articolo, tali approcci non aggiungano assolutamente nulla a pubblicare gli stessi fingerprint altrove, in "luoghi" digitali pubblici che ragionevolmente saranno più longevi di bitcoin. Come unica critica all'articolo trovo curioso che non discuta l'aspetto anonimato v. pseudonimato. La blockchain di bitcoin non è per nulla anonima, è solo pseudonima. In un mondo ipotetico nel quale tutte le transazioni avvengono su blockchain, deanonimizzare qualcuno è triviale. (Per evitarlo bisogna mettere in piedi uno scaffolding di multiplexer / demultiplexer di transazioni, aggiungendo complessità ed inefficienza.) Tutto questo non mi convince che sia *impossibile* trovare use case interessanti per le blockchain, come alcuni di quelli discussi in questo thread. Ma quelli che fino ad oggi hanno avuto un minimo di successo continuano a sembrarmi esempi di cargo cult sulla (bella) idea della blockchain che prodotti di cui si sentisse veramente bisogno. Buon anno a tutti! -- Stefano Zacchiroli . zack(a)upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Dec. 30, 2017

Re: [nexa] "Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain"

by Giuseppe Attardi

> On 27 Dec 2017, at 18:16, nexa-request(a)server-nexa.polito.it wrote: > > Blockchain e' usata per portare questi dati e consentire la vendita del pescato direttamente alla GDO, mentre tutti gli altri attori vedono i dati (data, peso, tipo pesce, etc.) e quindi possono sincronizzarsi e contemporaneamente contrattare con GDO i propri servizi (filettatura, congelamento, immagazzinamento e trasporto) senza nulla toccare del rapporto pescatore-GDO sul prezzo del pesce. > In precedenza sia la GDO, sia consorzo pescatori, sia entita' statali avevano provato a creare dei sistemi centralizzati dove tutti gli attori contribuissero per quanto di competenza. Non ha mai funzionato, specialmente, per il problema trust/conflitto tra le parti. Anch’io come Enrico non mi spiego come questa cosa non si potesse fare con mezzi tradizionali: ciascuno pubblica i propri dati in modo che tutti li possano vedere. Sembra una funzionalità abbastanza tipica di un database transazionale. Si fanno transazioni finanziarie di ben maggiore porta e frequenza nei mercati finanziari con queste tecnologie. Perché debbono essere in tanti a certificare la transazione avvenuta anziché uno solo deputato a farlo? Basta che i dati siano pubblicati e resi accessibili a tutti e si ha lo stesso effetto della blockchain, senza le complicazioni associate. Ci vedo solo complicazioni e pochi vantaggi: ognuno si deve attrezzare con mezzi, software, ecc. Nel caso della blockchain, l’incentivo a farlo è la remunerazione che gli altri fanno del suo lavoro. Ma in un sistema chiuso questo e solo un costo aggiuntivo. — Beppe

Dec. 30, 2017

Security Planner (by Citizen Lab)

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*Security Planner* by Citizen Lab Improve your online safety with advice from experts /Answer a few simple questions to get personalized online safety recommendations. It's confidential - no personal information is stored and we won't access any of your online accounts./ https://securityplanner.org

Dec. 30, 2017

104° Mercoledì di Nexa - 10 gennaio 2018

by Nexa Media

Nexa Center for Internet and Society Newsletter Se non visualizzi correttamente questo messaggio clicca qui <http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-104> NEXA 104° Mercoledì di Nexa Mercoledì 10 gennaio 2018, ore 18.00 - 20.00 Politecnico di Torino http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi-104 I dati della ricerca e il loro utilizzo: iniziative in corso nel nostro paese Speaker Paola Galimberti (Università degli Studi di Milano) This event will be webcast live: http://nexa.polito.it/upcoming-events /“Data is the new gold.”/ (N. Kroes) /“European science must be grounded in a common culture of data stewardship, so that research data is recognised as a significant output of research and is appropriately curated throughout and after the period conducting the research.”/ (EOSC Declaration) Da parecchio tempo in Europa sentiamo parlare dei dati della ricerca e dell’importanza di una loro gestione basata su principi condivisi affinché possano essere *accessibili e riutilizzabili da tutti* (a seconda dei casi: tutti coloro che sono interessati a riprodurre un determinato risultato; tutti coloro che chiedono e sono autorizzati ad accedervi; tutti i membri del gruppo di ricerca che ha prodotti tali dati). Ciò risulta fondamentale in un’epoca in cui *la scienza ha un evidente problema nella riproducibilità dei risultati raggiunti*. Quando uno scienziato pubblica una ricerca molte riviste gli richiedono di pubblicare (o per lo meno di rendere disponibili su richiesta) anche i dati su cui la sua ricerca è stata costruita e la descrizione della metodologia e degli strumenti con cui i dati sono stati prodotti. Che riflessi hanno le politiche dell’Europa nel nostro Paese? Quali sono le richieste del Ministero alle istituzioni e ai ricercatori che finanzia? *Il nostro Paese ha recepito* (come ad esempio la Gran Bretagna o l’Olanda) *l’importanza che ai dati viene attribuita a livello europeo? *Quali politiche (anche di incentivazione) sono state messe in atto? Quali infrastrutture e competenze sono state messe a disposizione di istituzioni e ricercatori? BIOGRAFIE - e informazioni supplementari [GALIMBERTI] *Paola GALIMBERTI* lavora presso l’Università degli Studi di Milano. Si occupa da anni di Open Access alle pubblicazioni scientifiche e ai dati della ricerca. Fa parte di IOSSG <https://sites.google.com/view/iossg/home>, del direttivo di AISA <http://aisa.sp.unipi.it/organi_soci/>, è editor per l’Italia della DOAJ, ed è uno dei redattori di ROARS <https://www.roars.it/online/>. *Letture consigliate e link utili:* * /EOSC Declaration <https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/eosc_declaration.pdf#view=fit…>/. * /The fair data principles <https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciples>/, Force 11. * /LERU Roadmap for Research Data <https://www.leru.org/publications/leru-roadmap-for-research-data>/, Leru. * /Big Data <http://www.istruzione.it/allegati/2016/bigdata.pdf>/, Miur. Che cosa sono il Centro Nexa e i cicli di incontri “Mercoledì di Nexa” e “Nexa Lunch Seminar” Il Centro Nexa su Internet & Società del Politecnico di Torino (Dipartimento di Automatica e Informatica) è un centro di ricerca indipendente e interdisciplinare che studia Internet e il suo effetto sulla società. Maggiori informazioni all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/about. Durante i “*Mercoledì di Nexa*”, che si tengono *ogni 2° mercoledì del mese* alle *ore 18 in punto*, il Centro Nexa su Internet e Società apre le sue porte non solo agli esperti e a tutti coloro i quali lavorano con Internet, ma anche a semplici appassionati e cittadini. Il ciclo di incontri intende approfondire, con un linguaggio preciso ma divulgativo, i temi legati alla Rete: motori di ricerca, Creative Commons, social networks, open source/software libero, neutralità della rete, libertà di espressione, privacy, file sharing, big e open data, smart cities e molto altro. Al centro di quasi tutti gli incontri un ospite pronto a dialogare con i direttori del Centro Nexa, il Prof. Juan Carlos De Martin del Politecnico di Torino e il Prof. Marco Ricolfi dell'Università di Torino, nonché lo staff e i Fellows del Centro Nexa. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa, incluso un elenco di tutti i “Mercoledì” passati, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/mercoledi. Si segnala inoltre che dal maggio 2012 *ogni 4° mercoledì* del mese *dalle ore 13 alle ore 14* il Centro Nexa organizza anche i "*Nexa Lunch Seminar*". Una lista di tutti i “Lunch Seminar” passati è disponibile all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/lunch-seminars. See our events calendar <http://nexa.polito.it/events> if you're curious about future luncheons, discussions, lectures, and conferences not listed in this email. Our events are free and open to the public, unless otherwise noted. Maggiori informazioni sui Mercoledì di Nexa e i Nexa Lunch Seminar, sono disponibili all'indirizzo: http://nexa.polito.it/events. Weekly Events Newsletter. Sign up <http://nexa.polito.it/mailing-lists> to receive this newsletter if this email was forwarded to you. To manage your subscription preferences, please click here <https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa>. Connect & get involved: Jobs, internships, and more <http://nexa.polito.it/get-involved>

Dec. 30, 2017

Matt Stoller: “Monopoly is a Form of Lawlessness”

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Intervento nel contesto del Harvard Law Forum, durata circa 43': https://youtu.be/xM9GMGDsKUU Matt Stoller is a fellow at the Open Markets program, where he researches the history of the relationship between concentrated financial power and the Democratic Party in the 20th century. Prior to joining the Open Markets program, he was senior policy advisory to the Senate Budget. juan carlos

Dec. 29, 2017

Re: [nexa] Who’s doing Google and Facebook’s dirty work? | John Naughton

by Antonio Casilli

> I costi sociali e relazionali del degradarsi dell'ambiente relazionale e > umano vengono collettivizzati, esattamente come quelli dell'inquinamento > ambientale tradizionale. giustissima considerazione. Si accorda con Bauman: “risks and contradictions go on being socially produced; it is just the duty and the necessity to cope with them which are being individualized” (Liquid Modernity, 2000, p. 34). ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alberto Cammozzo" <ac+nexa(a)zeromx.net> À: "Antonio Casilli" <antonio.casilli(a)telecom-paristech.fr> Cc: "nexa" <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it> Envoyé: Jeudi 28 Décembre 2017 19:06:23 Objet: Re: [nexa]Who’s doing Google and Facebook’s dirty work? | John Naughton Più che la mezzadria mi interessa l'inquinamento: l'inappropriate, objectionable o fake content sono funzionali al business ma "sporcano" o contaminano il contenuto pubblicitario. Questo "sporco" risulta poi in "lavori sporchi" al minimo costo possibile e quindi usando i turkers. I costi sociali e relazionali del degradarsi dell'ambiente relazionale e umano vengono collettivizzati, esattamente come quelli dell'inquinamento ambientale tradizionale. L'inquinamento ambientale è il primo prodotto (o sottoprodotto, per i più ottimisti) dei processi industriali. L'industrializzazione della comunicazione umana non fa eccezione, come dico da tempo, salvo che inquinarsi non sono l'aria e i fiumi. Alberto On 28/12/2017 17:05, Antonio Casilli wrote: > Che buffo. Senza averlo letto (e quindi senza citarlo), Naughton arriva alla stessa conclusione a cui era arrivato Carr 11 anni fa (http://www.roughtype.com/?p=634) …Buffo anche che il suo argomento non sia né più raffinato né meno reazionario e elitista, risolvendosi in una demonizzazione delle pratiche ordinarie online (“much of the objectionable content that is uploaded to social media is truly vile“)… > ----- Mail d'origine ----- > De: Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa(a)zeromx.net> > À: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Envoyé: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:50:49 +0100 (CET) > Objet: [nexa]Who’s doing Google and Facebook’s dirty work? | John Naughton > > > <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/24/facebook-google-youtu…> > > The basic deal offered by social media companies to their users runs > like this: “We give you tools to publish whatever you want, and then we > take the revenues that result from that. You get the personal > satisfaction and the warm glow that comes from seeing your holiday > pictures, your home movies or your cute cats online, and we bank the > cash we earn from selling your data-trails and profiles to advertisers.” > > It’s the digital world’s equivalent of the old American south’s practice > of sharecropping – a form of agriculture in which a landowner allows a > tenant to use the land in return for a share of the crops produced on > their plot. In the digital version, however, the virtual “landowners” > differ in their degrees of generosity. Facebook gives its sharecroppers > a zero share of the harvest. YouTube, in contrast, invites them to > become amateur broadcasters by uploading films to its site. If it runs > ads alongside these epic productions, then it shares some of the > proceeds with the sharecroppers. And if said productions attract large > numbers of viewers then this can be a nice little earner. > > The sharecropping business model has been a roaring success since 2006 > (when Google bought YouTube and Facebook opened its doors to the great > unwashed). But in recent times, some difficulties have emerged. First of > all, the old adage that nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste > of the general public was proved right. Sharecroppers discovered that > fake news – ie tasteless, misleading or sensational content – stood a > better chance of “going viral” (and earning more) than truthful stuff. > And second, it turned out that there are an awful lot of violent, > hateful, racist, misogynistic, fundamentalist sharecroppers out there. > The internet, it seems, holds up a mirror to human nature, and much that > we see reflected in it isn’t pretty. > > For a long time, the landowners of cyberspace tried to ignore this > problem by inviting users to “flag” inappropriate content, which would > then be reviewed at a leisurely pace. But as Isis began to master social > media and the political temperature in the west hotted up, the > inappropriate content problem changed from being an irritating cost > centre into an existential threat. Major advertisers decided that they > didn’t want their ads running alongside beheading videos, for example. > And social media executives found themselves being hauled up before > Congress, castigated by European politicians and threatened with dire > consequences unless they cleaned up their act. > > [...] > > > A few days ago, the first conference to discuss these questions was held > in Los Angeles. It was convened by Sarah Roberts, a UCLA professor who > has been studying online content-moderation for some years, and included > speakers who had done this kind of work, and revealed interesting > details like the rates of pay that contractors get: $0.02 for each image > reviewed. > > What was more alarming, though, was testimony on the psychological > impact that this kind of work can have on those who do it. “When I left > MySpace,” one reported, “I didn’t shake hands for, like, three years > because I figured out that people were disgusting. I just could not > touch people. I was disgusted by humanity when I left there. So many of > my peers, same thing. We all left with horrible views of humanity.” > > Welcome to the dark underbelly of our networked world. There’s no such > thing as a free lunch: online “safety” comes at a price. > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

Dec. 29, 2017

Re: [nexa] Who’s doing Google and Facebook’s dirty work? | John Naughton

by Alberto Cammozzo

Più che la mezzadria mi interessa l'inquinamento: l'inappropriate, objectionable o fake content sono funzionali al business ma "sporcano" o contaminano il contenuto pubblicitario. Questo "sporco" risulta poi in "lavori sporchi" al minimo costo possibile e quindi usando i turkers. I costi sociali e relazionali del degradarsi dell'ambiente relazionale e umano vengono collettivizzati, esattamente come quelli dell'inquinamento ambientale tradizionale. L'inquinamento ambientale è il primo prodotto (o sottoprodotto, per i più ottimisti) dei processi industriali. L'industrializzazione della comunicazione umana non fa eccezione, come dico da tempo, salvo che inquinarsi non sono l'aria e i fiumi. Alberto On 28/12/2017 17:05, Antonio Casilli wrote: > Che buffo. Senza averlo letto (e quindi senza citarlo), Naughton arriva alla stessa conclusione a cui era arrivato Carr 11 anni fa (http://www.roughtype.com/?p=634) …Buffo anche che il suo argomento non sia né più raffinato né meno reazionario e elitista, risolvendosi in una demonizzazione delle pratiche ordinarie online (“much of the objectionable content that is uploaded to social media is truly vile“)… > ----- Mail d'origine ----- > De: Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa(a)zeromx.net> > À: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > Envoyé: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:50:49 +0100 (CET) > Objet: [nexa]Who’s doing Google and Facebook’s dirty work? | John Naughton > > > <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/24/facebook-google-youtu…> > > The basic deal offered by social media companies to their users runs > like this: “We give you tools to publish whatever you want, and then we > take the revenues that result from that. You get the personal > satisfaction and the warm glow that comes from seeing your holiday > pictures, your home movies or your cute cats online, and we bank the > cash we earn from selling your data-trails and profiles to advertisers.” > > It’s the digital world’s equivalent of the old American south’s practice > of sharecropping – a form of agriculture in which a landowner allows a > tenant to use the land in return for a share of the crops produced on > their plot. In the digital version, however, the virtual “landowners” > differ in their degrees of generosity. Facebook gives its sharecroppers > a zero share of the harvest. YouTube, in contrast, invites them to > become amateur broadcasters by uploading films to its site. If it runs > ads alongside these epic productions, then it shares some of the > proceeds with the sharecroppers. And if said productions attract large > numbers of viewers then this can be a nice little earner. > > The sharecropping business model has been a roaring success since 2006 > (when Google bought YouTube and Facebook opened its doors to the great > unwashed). But in recent times, some difficulties have emerged. First of > all, the old adage that nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste > of the general public was proved right. Sharecroppers discovered that > fake news – ie tasteless, misleading or sensational content – stood a > better chance of “going viral” (and earning more) than truthful stuff. > And second, it turned out that there are an awful lot of violent, > hateful, racist, misogynistic, fundamentalist sharecroppers out there. > The internet, it seems, holds up a mirror to human nature, and much that > we see reflected in it isn’t pretty. > > For a long time, the landowners of cyberspace tried to ignore this > problem by inviting users to “flag” inappropriate content, which would > then be reviewed at a leisurely pace. But as Isis began to master social > media and the political temperature in the west hotted up, the > inappropriate content problem changed from being an irritating cost > centre into an existential threat. Major advertisers decided that they > didn’t want their ads running alongside beheading videos, for example. > And social media executives found themselves being hauled up before > Congress, castigated by European politicians and threatened with dire > consequences unless they cleaned up their act. > > [...] > > > A few days ago, the first conference to discuss these questions was held > in Los Angeles. It was convened by Sarah Roberts, a UCLA professor who > has been studying online content-moderation for some years, and included > speakers who had done this kind of work, and revealed interesting > details like the rates of pay that contractors get: $0.02 for each image > reviewed. > > What was more alarming, though, was testimony on the psychological > impact that this kind of work can have on those who do it. “When I left > MySpace,” one reported, “I didn’t shake hands for, like, three years > because I figured out that people were disgusting. I just could not > touch people. I was disgusted by humanity when I left there. So many of > my peers, same thing. We all left with horrible views of humanity.” > > Welcome to the dark underbelly of our networked world. There’s no such > thing as a free lunch: online “safety” comes at a price. > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa >

Dec. 28, 2017

Re: [nexa] Who’s doing Google and Facebook’s dirty work? | John Naughton

by Antonio Casilli

Che buffo. Senza averlo letto (e quindi senza citarlo), Naughton arriva alla stessa conclusione a cui era arrivato Carr 11 anni fa (http://www.roughtype.com/?p=634) …Buffo anche che il suo argomento non sia né più raffinato né meno reazionario e elitista, risolvendosi in una demonizzazione delle pratiche ordinarie online (“much of the objectionable content that is uploaded to social media is truly vile“)… ----- Mail d'origine ----- De: Alberto Cammozzo <ac+nexa(a)zeromx.net> À: nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it Envoyé: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:50:49 +0100 (CET) Objet: [nexa]Who’s doing Google and Facebook’s dirty work? | John Naughton <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/24/facebook-google-youtu…> The basic deal offered by social media companies to their users runs like this: “We give you tools to publish whatever you want, and then we take the revenues that result from that. You get the personal satisfaction and the warm glow that comes from seeing your holiday pictures, your home movies or your cute cats online, and we bank the cash we earn from selling your data-trails and profiles to advertisers.” It’s the digital world’s equivalent of the old American south’s practice of sharecropping – a form of agriculture in which a landowner allows a tenant to use the land in return for a share of the crops produced on their plot. In the digital version, however, the virtual “landowners” differ in their degrees of generosity. Facebook gives its sharecroppers a zero share of the harvest. YouTube, in contrast, invites them to become amateur broadcasters by uploading films to its site. If it runs ads alongside these epic productions, then it shares some of the proceeds with the sharecroppers. And if said productions attract large numbers of viewers then this can be a nice little earner. The sharecropping business model has been a roaring success since 2006 (when Google bought YouTube and Facebook opened its doors to the great unwashed). But in recent times, some difficulties have emerged. First of all, the old adage that nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the general public was proved right. Sharecroppers discovered that fake news – ie tasteless, misleading or sensational content – stood a better chance of “going viral” (and earning more) than truthful stuff. And second, it turned out that there are an awful lot of violent, hateful, racist, misogynistic, fundamentalist sharecroppers out there. The internet, it seems, holds up a mirror to human nature, and much that we see reflected in it isn’t pretty. For a long time, the landowners of cyberspace tried to ignore this problem by inviting users to “flag” inappropriate content, which would then be reviewed at a leisurely pace. But as Isis began to master social media and the political temperature in the west hotted up, the inappropriate content problem changed from being an irritating cost centre into an existential threat. Major advertisers decided that they didn’t want their ads running alongside beheading videos, for example. And social media executives found themselves being hauled up before Congress, castigated by European politicians and threatened with dire consequences unless they cleaned up their act. [...] A few days ago, the first conference to discuss these questions was held in Los Angeles. It was convened by Sarah Roberts, a UCLA professor who has been studying online content-moderation for some years, and included speakers who had done this kind of work, and revealed interesting details like the rates of pay that contractors get: $0.02 for each image reviewed. What was more alarming, though, was testimony on the psychological impact that this kind of work can have on those who do it. “When I left MySpace,” one reported, “I didn’t shake hands for, like, three years because I figured out that people were disgusting. I just could not touch people. I was disgusted by humanity when I left there. So many of my peers, same thing. We all left with horrible views of humanity.” Welcome to the dark underbelly of our networked world. There’s no such thing as a free lunch: online “safety” comes at a price. _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa -- Antonio A. Casilli Associate Professor, Telecom ParisTech Research Fellow, Edgar-Morin Center (EHESS) Member, Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation (i3 UMR 9217 CNRS) Faculty Fellow, Nexa Center for Internet & Society

Dec. 28, 2017

Who’s doing Google and Facebook’s dirty work? | John Naughton

by Alberto Cammozzo

<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/24/facebook-google-youtu…> The basic deal offered by social media companies to their users runs like this: “We give you tools to publish whatever you want, and then we take the revenues that result from that. You get the personal satisfaction and the warm glow that comes from seeing your holiday pictures, your home movies or your cute cats online, and we bank the cash we earn from selling your data-trails and profiles to advertisers.” It’s the digital world’s equivalent of the old American south’s practice of sharecropping – a form of agriculture in which a landowner allows a tenant to use the land in return for a share of the crops produced on their plot. In the digital version, however, the virtual “landowners” differ in their degrees of generosity. Facebook gives its sharecroppers a zero share of the harvest. YouTube, in contrast, invites them to become amateur broadcasters by uploading films to its site. If it runs ads alongside these epic productions, then it shares some of the proceeds with the sharecroppers. And if said productions attract large numbers of viewers then this can be a nice little earner. The sharecropping business model has been a roaring success since 2006 (when Google bought YouTube and Facebook opened its doors to the great unwashed). But in recent times, some difficulties have emerged. First of all, the old adage that nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the general public was proved right. Sharecroppers discovered that fake news – ie tasteless, misleading or sensational content – stood a better chance of “going viral” (and earning more) than truthful stuff. And second, it turned out that there are an awful lot of violent, hateful, racist, misogynistic, fundamentalist sharecroppers out there. The internet, it seems, holds up a mirror to human nature, and much that we see reflected in it isn’t pretty. For a long time, the landowners of cyberspace tried to ignore this problem by inviting users to “flag” inappropriate content, which would then be reviewed at a leisurely pace. But as Isis began to master social media and the political temperature in the west hotted up, the inappropriate content problem changed from being an irritating cost centre into an existential threat. Major advertisers decided that they didn’t want their ads running alongside beheading videos, for example. And social media executives found themselves being hauled up before Congress, castigated by European politicians and threatened with dire consequences unless they cleaned up their act. [...] A few days ago, the first conference to discuss these questions was held in Los Angeles. It was convened by Sarah Roberts, a UCLA professor who has been studying online content-moderation for some years, and included speakers who had done this kind of work, and revealed interesting details like the rates of pay that contractors get: $0.02 for each image reviewed. What was more alarming, though, was testimony on the psychological impact that this kind of work can have on those who do it. “When I left MySpace,” one reported, “I didn’t shake hands for, like, three years because I figured out that people were disgusting. I just could not touch people. I was disgusted by humanity when I left there. So many of my peers, same thing. We all left with horrible views of humanity.” Welcome to the dark underbelly of our networked world. There’s no such thing as a free lunch: online “safety” comes at a price.

Dec. 27, 2017