Ciao, qualche considerazione attinente alla discussione di poco tempo fa su questa lista: "Filmmaker Jeff Orlowski seems to frame “ethical” platform design <https://theconversation.com/ethical-design-is-the-answer-to-some-of-social-m...> as the antidote. While this is an important consideration, it’s not a complete answer. And this framing is one of several issues in The Social Dilemma’s approach.Ethical design considers the moral consequences of the design choices in a platform. It is design made with the intent to ‘do good’. Shutterstock The program also relies uncritically on interviews with former tech executives, who apparently never realised the consequences of manipulating users for monetary gain. It propagates the Silicon Valley fantasy they were just innocent geniuses wanting to improve the world (despite ample evidence <https://medium.com/@rossformaine/i-was-googles-head-of-international-relatio...> to the contrary <https://www.wired.com/story/cambridge-analytica-50m-facebook-users-data/>). As tech policy expert Maria Farell suggests, these retired “prodigal tech bros <https://conversationalist.org/2020/03/05/the-prodigal-techbro/>”, who are now safely insulated from consequences, are presented as the moral authority. Meanwhile, the digital rights and privacy activists who have worked for decades to hold them to account are largely omitted from view." (...) In the long run, stemming the flow of personal data to digital platforms will also need legislative change. While legislation can’t fix everything, it can encourage systemic change. In Australia, we need stronger data privacy protections, preferably in the form of blanket legislative protection such as the General Data Protection Regulation implemented in Europe <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/news/general-data-protection-regulation-GD...> in 2018." https://theconversation.com/netflixs-the-social-dilemma-highlights-the-probl... Ciao, Federico