Grazie per il link al discorso integrale, per il quale condivido
la delusione di Maurizio Borghi.
Questo passaggio mi ha colpito:
We do expect these companies to affirm the importance of our democratic institutions, not dismiss them, and to work to find the right combination of regulation and industry standards that will make democracy stronger. And because companies recognize the often dangerous relationship between social media, nationalism, domestic hate groups, they do need to engage with vulnerable populations about how to put better safeguards in place to protect minority populations, ethnic populations, religious minorities, wherever they operate.
So for example, in the United States, they should be working with, not always contrary to, those groups that are trying to prevent voter suppression and specifically has targeted black and brown communities. In other words, these companies need to have some other North Star other than just making money and increasing market share. Fix the problem that, in part, they helped create, but also to stand for something bigger.
Mi sorprende che un ex-presidente possa dire una serie di cose
così ingenue, prima tra tutte che le più grosse società per azioni
sul mercato abbiano una "stella polare" diversa dal "fare solo
soldi". Condivisibile ma irrealistica, come pretendere che Batman
risolva il problema.
Un altro presidente -Eisenhower- negli ultimi giorni del suo
mandato (1961) in un celebre discorso mise in guardia il suo Paese
contro il nuovo potere insorgente all'epoca, quello
tecnologico-militare-industriale: in modo molto più lucido di
Obama puntava i dito sugli stessi fattori di rischio (il
"disastroso aumento di potere mal riposto" e di "influenza non
autorizzata") e sui rischi derivanti per "la libertà e i processi
democratici".
Obama invece distoglie la sua attenzione dalle compagnie e la dirige sugli individui: invita gli studenti di Stanford di "votare coi piedi" per spingere le compagnie a "fare la cosa giusta" e i cittadini ad essere "migliori consumatori di notizie", ma non menziona l'enorme problema della concentrazione di potere e denaro che impedisce esattamente di fare queste cose: quella influenza totale, economica, politica e perfino spirituale di cui invece parla Eisenhower [1].
Esattamente la stessa postura ipocrita che carica consumatori e
cittadini di responsabilità per la crisi ambientale, declinando
minuziosamente i loro comportamenti più o meno ecologici o quelli
che mettono a rischio la propria salute, mentre scagiona (per
omissione) le macroscopiche responsabilità dei principali attori
industriali, ai quali ci si può limitare di raccomandare di
"guardare oltre al denaro".
Ciao,
Alberto
[1] <https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp> Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040
[...] This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
Qui la trascrizione del discorso integrale: https://techpolicy.press/transcript-barack-obama-speech-on-technology-and-democracy/
Buon w/e a tutti
f.
Il venerdì 22 aprile 2022, 19:18:49 CEST, Maurizio Borghi <maurizio.borghi@unito.it> ha scritto:
Una reazione a caldo: il discorso mi sembra un capolavoro di doppiezza e ipocrisia, che suggella il patto del diavolo tra democratici americani e big tech. Con la scusa del terrapiattismo e della "disinformazione che uccide" (non bastavano le "fake news") si chiudono sempre più gli spazi di critica e dissenso, oltre che le voci degli avversari politici. In cambio, si farà chiudere un occhio, anzi due, all'antitrust e agli altri regolatori pubblici che ultimamente hanno alzato un po' troppo la cresta.
Buon 25 Aprile a tutti,
MB
Il giorno ven 22 apr 2022 alle ore 09:57 Alberto Cammozzo via nexa <nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> ha scritto:
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/21/obama-stanford-speech-big-tech>
Technology companies must be reined in to address the “weakening of democratic institutions around the world”, Barack Obama said Thursday, in a sweeping keynote speech on the perils of disinformation.
Speaking at Stanford University in Silicon Valley, the former president made his most extensive remarks yet about the technology landscape, which he said is “turbo-charging some of humanity’s worst impulses”.
Barack and Michelle Obama to end exclusive podcasting deal with Spotify, reports say
Read more
“One of the biggest reasons for the weakening of democracy is the profound change that’s taken place in how we communicate and consume information,” he said.
The address came as Obama has increasingly focused his post-presidential messaging on misinformation and what should be done about the largely unchecked power wielded by big tech. On Thursday, he solidified those calls, endorsing specific legislation.
“Do we allow our democracy to wither, or do we make it better?” Obama asked. “That is the choice.”
‘People are dying because of disinformation’
Obama’s speech called attention to the grave impacts of disinformation and misinformation – including manipulation of the 2016 and 2020 elections and the rise of anti-vaccination sentiments.
He was candid about regrets he had surrounding Donald Trump’s election, saying his administration had long known that Russia had incentive to manipulate US democracy but he underestimated the effectiveness of the efforts.
“What still nags at me is my failure to appreciate at the time just how susceptible we had become to lies and conspiracy theories,” Obama said.
A Senate panel report in 2020 found conclusively that Russia had interfered in the 2016 elections to sway votes in favor of Trump, echoing findings from a prior report published by the Department of Justice.
In addition to impacting the results of those elections, disinformation and misinformation has also caused many Americans to reject the results of democratically sound elections, Obama said – noting that the majority of Republicans doubt the legitimacy of Biden’s 2020 win.
Much of these issues can be attributed to a decline in media literacy, the erosion of local news sources, and an “information overload” as we come into contact with limitless content each day.
“The sheer proliferation of conflict and the splintering of information and audiences has made democracy more complicated,” Obama said.
‘Need another north star’
Obama took aim at the business models at the heart of big tech firms, noting that “inflammatory content attracts engagement” and that “the veil of anonymity platforms provide” make it easier to spread misinformation.
He said while rising industry standards are helpful, solid regulation is needed to address social media companies’ business models and the way they design their products.
“These companies need to have some other north star other than just making money and increasing market share,” Obama said.
In particular, Obama addressed the frequent refrain of tech companies that their algorithms are proprietary business secrets, saying they have become “too guarded” and “need to be subject to some level of public oversight and regulation”.
To do so, Obama endorsed the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act, a bill introduced by US Senators Chris Coons, Amy Klobuchar and Rob Portman that would require social media companies to share certain platform data and allow vetting from independent researchers.
He also called for reform of Section 230, a law that shields platforms from legal liability for content posted on their sites, saying that “wholesale repeal is not the answer” but “we need to consider reforms” to the measure.
“As the world’s leading democracy, we have to set a better example. We should be at the lead on these discussions internationally, not in the rear.”
‘Yes we can’ for the age of disinformation
Despite dire warnings about the imminent crumbling of democracy under the disinformation epidemic, Obama called for a return to the hope present in the early days of big tech.
“Today’s social media has a grimness to it,” he said. “We’re so fatalistic about the steady stream of bile and vitriol that’s on there. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In fact, if we’re going to succeed, it can’t be that way.”
Obama’s tone harkens back to an age of tech before the 2016 elections shook the world’s faith in companies like Facebook. His own presidency took place at a time when social media was still thought of as a force for good – stoking democratic revolutions like the Arab Spring.
His election in 2008 is also largely thought of as one of the first to be fueled by grassroots social media campaigns – with supporters of Obama having been significantly more engaged online than those of McCain. Obama said at the time there was “a certain joy of finding new ways to connect and organize”.
“Social media is a tool. At the end of the day, tools don’t control us, we control them,” Obama said. “It’s up to each of us to decide what we value and then use the tools we’ve been given to advance those values.”_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa