May 2021 - nexa - server-nexa.polito.it

Re: [nexa] Technology is driving the future, but who is doing the steering?

by Norberto Patrignani

Grazie Juan Carlos! Gia' ai tempi della Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (cpsr.org) quaranta anni fa si diceva "Technology is driving the future... the steering it is up to us" e nel dibattito era emerso che anche "technology is driving the future" potrebbe essere vista come "tecno-determinismo". Infatti e' bellissima la tua " tecnologia e' umanita' " dunque andrebbe "Humanity is driving the future". Sara' interessante sentire come Vardi propone di far evolvere l' "academic computing curriculum". Grazie ancora a tutt* per le bellissime riflessioni Norberto Il 23/05/2021 08:45, J.C. DE MARTIN ha scritto: > Certo, la tecnologia è profondamente politica. > > Mi permetto di rinviare al breve testo che scrissi in occasione > dell'inaugurazione della prima edizione di Biennale Tecnologia: > http://demartin.polito.it/tecnologiaeumanita. > > jc > > > On 23/05/21 07:54, Giuseppe Attardi wrote: >> In this year’s Gödel lecture, Moshe Vardi will explain why the >> ethical lens is too narrow for dealing with technology’s impact on >> society. >> >> This talk will argue that the ethical lens is too narrow. The real >> issue is how to deal with technology’s impact on society. >> >> https://informatics.tuwien.ac.at/news/2020?utm_campaign=feed&utm_term=news >> <https://informatics.tuwien.ac.at/news/2020?utm_campaign=feed&utm_term=news> >> >> — Beppe >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nexa mailing list >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it >> https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

May 24, 2021

Free Speech and Hate Speech - Annual Review of Political Science Vol. 22 (May 2019)

by Giovanni Biscuolo

Care nexiane, segnalo questo interessante saggio di analisi del tema in oggetto, nel quale trovo anche qualche utile elemento in merito alle c.d. "fake news" (nella sezione "The Thinker-Based Argument") https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343 Free Speech and Hate Speech Annual Review of Political Science Vol. 22:93-109 (Volume publication date May 2019) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343 Jeffrey W. Howard - Department of Political Science, University College London --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Abstract Should hate speech be banned? This article contends that the debate on this question must be disaggregated into discrete analytical stages, lest its participants continue to talk past one another. The first concerns the scope of the moral right to freedom of expression, and whether hate speech falls within the right's protective ambit. If it does, hate speech bans are necessarily unjust. If not, we turn to the second stage, which assesses whether speakers have moral duties to refrain from hate speech. The article canvasses several possible duties from which such a duty could be derived, including duties not to threaten, harass, offend, defame, or incite. If there is a duty to refrain from hate speech, it is yet a further question whether the duty should actually be enforced. This third stage depends on pragmatic concerns involving epistemic fallibility, the abuse of state power, and the benefits of counter-speech over coercion. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Dopo una lunga analisi, che vale la pena leggere, nelle conclusioi scrive: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- [...] The first concerns our limited moral motivation. Politicians can be unscrupulous in the quest to maintain power, and there is an enduring worry that they will abuse statutes restricting speech to silence political adversaries. The second, related element concerns our limited epistemic competence about moral matters. Many of our fellow citizens hold mistaken views about what political morality requires and so are liable to suppress speech that they view as dangerous and objectionable but that is, in fact, perfectly legitimate. [...] Finally, there are inherent difficulties in authoring statutes that are not objectionably over-inclusive, leading to the prosecution of speakers who do not merit prosecution. This makes us unavoidably and heavily reliant on prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of hate speech restrictions, which compounds the previous worries. [...] Counter-speech tends to be defended by those who think that the moral right to freedom of expression protects hate speech (e.g., Brettschneider 2012), or who think that the state is morally unreliable. This makes sense; if banning hate speech is morally misguided (for either reason), counter-speech is the only morally permissible remedy. Yet even if we view hate speech as morally unprotected, and even if we would generally trust the state to ban it, it could still be the case that counter-speech is simply more effective at combating hateful views than is the law. That would itself be a powerful consideration against criminalization. [...] --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Saluti, Giovanni. -- Giovanni Biscuolo «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.

May 23, 2021

Re: [nexa] Technology is driving the future, but who is doing the steering?

by Giovanni Biscuolo

"J.C. DE MARTIN" <juancarlos.demartin(a)polito.it> writes: > Certo, la tecnologia è profondamente politica. > > Mi permetto di rinviare al breve testo che scrissi in occasione > dell'inaugurazione della prima edizione di Biennale Tecnologia: > http://demartin.polito.it/tecnologiaeumanita. Da quando l'ho letto questa frase me la sono scolpita nei neuroni: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- E’ essenziale, però, che fin dall’inizio di questa riflessione filosofica e politica si pensi alla tecnologia in modo nuovo: non più mero insieme di strumenti dall’efficacia variabile, ma componente immanente dell’umanità. Tecnologia è umanità. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- L'intero articolo, poi, mi ha fatto comprendere ancora meglio qual'è l'elemento fondamentale nell'analizzare il rapporto tra persone e tecnologia: autonomia verso eteronomia, ovvero "Am I (at least involved in) doing the steering?" [1] É in questo filone del discorso che io /intravedo/ l'informatica come uno strumento di analisi dirompente, in grado di modificare per sempre come le persone concepiscono la propria /natura/ tecnologica, fino a comprendere (anche nel senso di includere) i dispositivi tecnologici; per questo la cultura informatica andrebbe /coltivata/. Grazie! [...] [1] per "il digitale" in questa lista si discusse di un termine migliore da usare rispetto a "computing agency". -- Giovanni Biscuolo «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.

May 23, 2021

Re: [nexa] Technology is driving the future, but who is doing the steering?

by J.C. DE MARTIN

Certo, la tecnologia è profondamente politica. Mi permetto di rinviare al breve testo che scrissi in occasione dell'inaugurazione della prima edizione di Biennale Tecnologia: http://demartin.polito.it/tecnologiaeumanita. jc On 23/05/21 07:54, Giuseppe Attardi wrote: > In this year’s Gödel lecture, Moshe Vardi will explain why the ethical > lens is too narrow for dealing with technology’s impact on society. > > This talk will argue that the ethical lens is too narrow. The real > issue is how to deal with technology’s impact on society. > > https://informatics.tuwien.ac.at/news/2020?utm_campaign=feed&utm_term=news > <https://informatics.tuwien.ac.at/news/2020?utm_campaign=feed&utm_term=news> > > — Beppe > > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa

May 23, 2021

Technology is driving the future, but who is doing the steering?

by Giuseppe Attardi

In this year’s Gödel lecture, Moshe Vardi will explain why the ethical lens is too narrow for dealing with technology’s impact on society. This talk will argue that the ethical lens is too narrow. The real issue is how to deal with technology’s impact on society. https://informatics.tuwien.ac.at/news/2020?utm_campaign=feed&utm_term=news <https://informatics.tuwien.ac.at/news/2020?utm_campaign=feed&utm_term=news> — Beppe

May 23, 2021

Censura e Sorveglianza ai tempi di Internet [Era:Milano, sospeso per un mese il prof che aveva condiviso post sessista...]

by Damiano Verzulli

Il 22/05/21 14:08, Enrico Nardelli ha scritto: > Segnalo sul tema dealla libertà di espressione questo articolo di > Andrea Zhok > > https://sinistrainrete.info/articoli-brevi/20436-andrea-zhok-della-censura.… > <https://sinistrainrete.info/articoli-brevi/20436-andrea-zhok-della-censura.…> Nell'articolo citato --che discute della censura "televisiva" e della sua storia, nel nostro Paese-- ho notato il passaggio seguente, con il quale l'autore sembrerebbe sostenere che, di fatto, una "censura 'reale'" rappresenti qualcosa di difficilmente realizzabile: ---- "Oggi l'atteggiamento censorio draconiano che mira a "non far trapelare niente di eterodosso" non è né efficace, né politicamente utile, né materialmente percorribile. Un controllo del genere sarebbe enormemente oneroso, ma soprattutto sarebbe superfluo." ---- Allargando il tema su scala globale, e focalizzandoci sulla Cina, il caso ha voluto che qualche giorno fa (il 17/05/2021) tre giornalisti del New York Times hanno pubblicato un report eccezionalmente ben-documentato (a mio modesto parere, ovviamente), rispetto al rapporto che si è instaurato fra Apple e autorità cinesi. È particolarmente significativo il fatto che --proprio rispetto al tema della "censura"-- gli equilibri siano tali per cui è perfettamente possibile --ed accade realmente-- che la "censura" venga applicata negli USA (e non soltanto in Cina). L'articolo è questo: => Censorship, Surveillance and Profits: A Hard Bargain for Apple in China Apple built the world’s most valuable business on top of China. Now it has to answer to the Chinese government. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.h… ne consiglio vivamente la lettura integrale. Saluti, DV -- Damiano Verzulli e-mail: damiano(a)verzulli.it --- possible?ok:while(!possible){open_mindedness++} --- "...I realized that free software would not generate the kind of income that was needed. Maybe in USA or Europe, you may be able to get a well paying job as a free software developer, but not here [in Africa]..." -- Guido Sohne - 1973-2008 http://ole.kenic.or.ke/pipermail/skunkworks/2008-April/005989.html

May 22, 2021

NYT: "Shoshana Zuboff Explains Why You Should Care About Privacy"

by J.C. DE MARTIN

*Shoshana Zuboff Explains Why You Should Care About Privacy* /In a wide-ranging interview, the author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” talks about why people should pay attention to how big tech companies are using their information.// / By Lauren Jackson May 21, 2021 It was a grenade lobbed into the tenuous peace between Apple and Facebook — a software update that explicitly asked iPhone users whether an app should be allowed to track their digital movements across the other apps and sites that they use. Apple pitched the feature, App Tracking Transparency, as a triumph for privacy. But for Facebook, it was an attack striking a key source of revenue: the personal data of its users. The dispute represents a further deterioration in the relations between the two companies and their chief executives, Mark Zuckerberg and Tim Cook. In a recent episode of The Daily, Mike Issac, a technology correspondent for The New York Times, asked a question at the heart of this conflict: “Do people care about privacy?” The answer, as he explained, will determine the conflict’s trajectory — and the limitations on Big Tech’s power in a largely unregulated, hypercompetitive fight for market dominance. After the episode aired, we called someone who thinks deeply about both privacy and the economic forces behind this competition: Shoshana Zuboff, author of “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.” In the following interview, we ask Ms. Zuboff about the significance of this update in regards to privacy protections long term, the prospect of platform regulation and her vision for a less-extractive digital future. Our conversation has been condensed and lightly edited. [...] continua qui: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/technology/shoshana-zuboff-apple-google-…

May 22, 2021

What if Instead of Calling People Out, We Called Them In?

by Giovanni Biscuolo

Buongiorno, un'interessante intervista a Prof. Loretta J. Ross dello Smith College (Northampton, Massachusetts, USA), femminista e attivista per i diritti civili da più di 40 anni e tra i 153 firmatari della famosa (famigerata?) lettera [1] «A Letter on Justice and Open Debate» (aka Harper's Letter). «What if Instead of Calling People Out, We Called Them In?» By Jessica Bennett - Published Nov. 19, 2020 - Updated Feb. 24, 2021 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/style/loretta-ross-smith-college-cancel-… --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- [...] Professor Ross, 67, an unlikely figure in the culture wars. A radical Black feminist who has been doing human rights work for four decades, she was one of the signatories of a widely denounced letter in Harper’s Magazine, for which she herself was called out. “There’s such an irony for being called out for calling out the calling-out culture,” she said. “It really was amusing.” [...] She doesn’t believe people should be publicly shamed for accidentally misgendering a classmate, which she once did, leading to a Title IX complaint that was later dismissed; for sending a stupid tweet they now regret; or for, say, admitting they once liked a piece of pop culture now viewed in a different light, such as “The Cosby Show.” Professor Ross thinks call-out culture has taken conversations that could have once been learning opportunities and turned them into mud wrestling on message boards, YouTube comments, Twitter and at colleges like Smith, where proving one’s commitment to social justice has become something of a varsity sport. “I think this is also related to something I just discovered called doom scrolling,” Professor Ross told the students. “I think we actually sabotage our own happiness with this unrestrained anger. And I have to honestly ask: Why are you making choices to make the world crueler than it needs to be and calling that being ‘woke’?” The antidote to that outrage cycle, Professor Ross believes, is “calling in.” Calling in is like calling out, but done privately and with respect. “It’s a call out done with love,” she said. That may mean simply sending someone a private message, or even ringing them on the telephone (!) to discuss the matter, or simply taking a breath before commenting, screen-shotting or demanding one “do better” without explaining how. Calling out assumes the worst. Calling in involves conversation, compassion and context. It doesn’t mean a person should ignore harm, slight or damage, but nor should she, he or they exaggerate it. “Every time somebody disagrees with me it’s not ‘verbal violence.’” Professor Ross said. “I’m not getting ‘re-raped.’ Overstatement of harm is not helpful when you’re trying to create a culture of compassion.” There was call-out culture when Professor Ross was young. “We called it ‘trashing,’” she said, referring to a term used by Jo Freeman, in an essay in Ms., to describe infighting within the women’s movement. “It used to be you’d be calling someone out to a duel. This is how Alexander Hamilton got shot!” Professor Ross said. “What’s new is the virality and the speed and the anonymity.” [...] The idea of “calling in” occurred to Professor Ross at a speech she was organizing at Smith in 2015 to honor Gloria Steinem. What was up with all the nastiness she saw on Twitter, she asked a young woman. “Oh, you mean ‘calling out’?’’ the woman said. “You-all named it?’” Professor Ross said in surprise. She soon assembled a group of students to practice the techniques of “calling in” and took the message on the road. During quarantine this summer, she began offering an online course called Calling In the Calling Out Culture, and is working on a book of the same name. [...] More troublesome, Professor Ross and others agree, is when small infractions become big infractions; when context gets lost and facts are distorted, or it becomes difficult to discern between the two. “These algorithms can’t distinguish between outrage and shaming that is proportionate and outrage and shaming that is disproportionate to the original transgression,” said Molly Crockett, an assistant professor of psychology at Yale University who studies moral outrage online. Back on her Zoom call, Professor Ross pulled up another slide, this one with a photo of Natalie Wynn, a popular YouTuber who has put together a kind of taxonomy of call-out culture after being “canceled” multiple times. Its characteristics include presumption of guilt (without facts or nuance getting in the way); essentialism (when criticism of bad behavior becomes criticism of a bad person); pseudo-intellectualism (proclaiming one’s moral high ground); unforgivability (no apology is good enough); and, of course, contamination, or guilt by association. [...] Some said later that the prospect of call outs had made them hesitant to speak up or ask questions in classes, or endlessly planning for the arguments that might ensue. [...] What’s the difference between calling in and a regular confrontation? What if calling out in fact is the most effective way to seek progress — as with, say, in the case of a public figure? And when is politely trying to “call in” simply no longer effective? “You can’t be responsible for someone else’s inability to grow,” Professor Ross said. “So take comfort in the fact that you offered a new perspective of information and you did so with love and respect, and then you walk away. “We have a saying in the movement: Some people you can work with and some people you can work around. But the thing that I want to emphasize is that the calling-in practice means you always keep a seat at the table for them if they come back.” --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Lunga vita e prosperità, Giovanni. [1] https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_on_Justice_and_Open_Debate -- Giovanni Biscuolo «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>. .

May 22, 2021

Once Tech’s Favorite Economist, Now a Thorn in Its Side - The New York Times

by J.C. DE MARTIN

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/technology/tech-antitrust-paul-romer.html (Sent from my wireless device; please excuse brevity and typos (if any))

May 22, 2021

Re: [nexa] R: Milano, sospeso per un mese il prof che aveva condiviso post sessista...

by Enrico Nardelli

Segnalo sul tema dealla libertà di espressione questo articolo di Andrea Zhok https://sinistrainrete.info/articoli-brevi/20436-andrea-zhok-della-censura.… ... E' per questo che gli strilli allo scandalo, le richieste di sanzioni, gli appelli alla forza pubblica, alla magistratura, alle istituzioni ecc. si concentrano su programmi e canali televisivi, su siti frequentati, su figure socialmente prominenti, voci istituzionali, occasionalmente anche sul corpo insegnante, cui si imputa ottimisticamente qualche capacità diffusiva. Questa è la realtà della censura odierna. Una realtà con tratti esteriori diversi da quelli che studiamo nei libri di storia, ma esattamente identica dal punto di vista della funzione politica e degli effetti sociali. Di più, si tratta di una realtà che nella storia non è mai stata così decisiva come oggi, visto che mai nella storia l'informazione è stata così cruciale come arma politica, diplomatica ed economica. -- sent from mobile, please forgive typos and conciseness =================== Prof. Enrico Nardelli Univ. Roma Tor Vergata ===================

May 22, 2021