Werd I/O

[Annalee Newitz at The Believer]

Boots Riley is a national treasure. I loved this interview with him in The Believer:

"BLVR: Do you think that all expression is propaganda?

BR: The word propaganda got popularized in different ways at different times. But our generation knows it as a derogatory word for what other countries do. However, in the 1980s, if you were to call Red Dawn—which was my favorite movie at the time—propaganda, people would have been like, Oh, you’re crazy. That’s just freethinking.

[...] BR: Yeah. We think anything could happen because it’s in this other reality. You need some connections to what is happening on our world for people to question it as they’re watching. When it’s in space, you have the possibility of saying, OK, cool, a rebellion seems natural. I want to make movies where people don’t just theoretically agree to rebel if the moment is right. I want them to look at where they are right now and ask themselves whether they agree."

The full interview is worth your time.

#Culture

[Link]

[Oxford Martin School]

The Oxford Martin School is a multidisciplinary research institution at the University of Oxford focused on tackling global challenges and shaping a sustainable future through innovation and collaboration. It ran a study on the societal implications of decentralized social media and found that "such platforms offer potential for increased citizen empowerment in this digital domain."

The lead author of the paper, Zhilin Zhang, noted that:

‘Decentralised social media platforms represent a shift towards user autonomy, where individuals can engage in a safer and more inclusive digital space without the constraints and biases imposed by traditional, centralised, algorithm-driven networks.

[...] Decentralised social media is more than just a technical shift; it's a step toward restoring autonomy and trust in our digital lives, empowering individuals and communities to connect without compromising their values or privacy.’

While the paper was undertaken under the auspices of the Martin School, its authors are affiliated with Oxford, University College London, and Stanford University: a true collaboration between centers of excellence with respect to the intersection of computing and society.

There's (I think) an obvious follow-on, which is that public interest funders should consider how they might support non-profit decentralized social media efforts, and continue to investigate their societal impacts. Which fund or foundation will step up first?

#Fediverse

[Link]

[Dan Milmo at The Guardian]

The Department of Justice has filed its proposed remedies to Google's illegal monopoly over search services:

"The proposals filed to a Washington federal court include the forced sale of the Chrome browser and a five-year ban from entering the browser market; a block on paying third parties such as Apple to make Google the default search engine on their products and divestment of the Android mobile operating system if the initial proposals do not work."

The court also wants everyone to have a way to block their content from being used as AI training data - and for the search index itself to be opened up.

The judge will decide next year. I have to assume there will be intense negotiations about which remedies actually get implemented - and I don't hold out much hope for strong enforcement under the Trump administration (particularly one where Elon Musk and JD Vance are participants). But it's a hint of what strong, capable antitrust enforcement could look like.

#Technology

[Link]

[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]

Changes to financial aid at MIT:

"Undergraduates with family income below $200,000 can expect to attend MIT tuition-free starting next fall, thanks to newly expanded financial aid. Eighty percent of American households meet this income threshold."

If your family makes less than $100,000 a year, you also get housing, dining, and fees included, as well as an allowance for books.

I was a part of the final year of students to attend university tuition-free in the UK, and it made a huge difference to me. I would also have met this bar for having all costs covered - which will give the students who qualify an enormous head start. May more universities follow this lead.

#Education

[Link]

[Julia Angwin at The New York Times]

In an op-ed for The New York Times, Julia Angwin makes a strong argument for the open social web:

"If we want a quality information environment, we have to build a new one beyond the walls of the existing Big Tech social media platforms.

We can do that by funding people who do the hard work of collecting facts (a.k.a. journalists) and by finding new ways to reach audiences beyond the grip of social media algorithms that are designed to promote outrageous content rather than sober facts. There is also a new movement brewing that aims to break open the gates of the closed social media platforms."

Julia goes on to describe the fediverse and how it's a key part of the solution. I particular, it's a way for all of us to seize control of our social media environment from platforms that are not acting in any of our interests.

#Fediverse

[Link]

[Lucinda Jordaan at Global Investigative Journalism Network]

I'd missed this story from back in July. Rappler is building its own end-to-end encrypted, decentralized communities on the Matrix protocol.

"Built on the open source, secure, decentralized Matrix protocol, the app has the potential to become a global independent news distribution outlet, and promises to pave the way for a “shared reality” — a call Ressa has been making to counter “the cascading failures of a corrupted public information ecosystem.”"

This is both incredibly cool and makes a ton of sense. It's the first time I've seen a newsroom build decentralized communities in the wild - and it's doubly cool that it's end-to-end encrypted. For CEO Maria Ressa, whose work has been beset by endless legal challenges in the Philippines, that last feature is particularly vital. But it all helps the newsroom evade censorship and avoid serving up its content for AI vendors to train on.

This quote from Ressa is something that every newsroom should learn from:

"We realized: there is no future for digital news unless we build our own tech, because there are only three ways a digital news site, or any digital site, gets traffic: direct, search, or social search.

[...] If you do not trust the tech, then you are always going to be at the mercy of surveillance for-profit tech companies that, frankly, don’t understand news or the value of journalism."

Exactly. I've banged this drum repeatedly, but it's a far more effective message from Ressa than me. This is the way. I truly hope that more will follow.

#Media

[Link]

[Khadija Alam and Russell Brandom at Rest of World]

Mobile internet subscriber growth is significantly slowing globally:

"From 2015 to 2021, the survey consistently found over 200 million coming online through mobile devices around the world each year. But in the last two years, that number has dropped to 160 million. Rest of World analysis of that data found that a number of developing countries are plateauing in the number of mobile internet subscribers. That suggests that in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Mexico, the easiest populations to get online have already logged on, and getting the rest of the population on mobile internet will continue to be a challenge."

Many services - Facebook included - were able to grow rapidly by hitching a ride on the growth of the internet itself. It looks like that rapid growth is coming to an end, which will have implications for consumer startups down the line.

It will also fundamentally change the way we relate to the internet. It used to be that the majority of internet users were new: correspondingly, there was a shine to just being connected that overshadowed shortcomings. But we're finding ourselves in an era where most of us have been able to sit with the internet for a while, sometimes for generations. That inevitably leads to a more nuanced relationship with it - and in turn, more detailed thoughts around regulation, policy, and the kinds of applications we want to be using in the long term. That cultural change will be interesting to watch, and likely societally positive - but it will come with some downsides for tech companies and platforms.

#Technology

[Link]

[Anil Dash]

Anil Dash on Substack's attempt to brand "writing in a newsletter":

"We constrain our imaginations when we subordinate our creations to names owned by fascist tycoons. Imagine the author of a book telling people to "read my Amazon". A great director trying to promote their film by saying "click on my Max". That's how much they've pickled your brain when you refer to your own work and your own voice within the context of their walled garden. There is no such thing as "my Substack", there is only your writing, and a forever fight against the world of pure enshittification."

Anil makes a point to highlight Substack's very problematic content policies: not only won't they ban someone who is using the platform to spout real hate, and have not removed most Nazis (not figurative Nazis, not right-wing voices, but literal flag-waving Nazis) from posting or earning money there.

They don't deserve to brand an open platform like email. And, in fact, nobody does. I appreciate Anil calling it out.

#Media

[Link]

[Jillian D'Onfro at The San Francisco Standard]

On one level, this piece about tech workers leaving the industry behind and doing something more culturally meaningful is quite nice:

"Andrew Wasilewski, who managed to live “very frugally” on his layoff package while launching the Faight Collective, a music and art community in the Lower Haight, signed the lease for the space mere weeks after his last day of work in tech sales."

But then you find yourself asking: how does an artist community pay a lease on the Lower Haight? How do any of these folks live like this, even for a while, in one of the most expensive cities in the world?

And the answer is obvious, and a little sad, and perhaps not very empowering after all.

#Culture

[Link]

[Annie Waldman at ProPublica]

UnitedHealth Group has been using an algorithm to determine whether patients have been receiving "too much" therapy and then cutting them off:

"Around 2016, government officials began to pry open United’s black box. They found that the nation’s largest health insurance conglomerate had been using algorithms to identify providers it determined were giving too much therapy and patients it believed were receiving too much; then, the company scrutinized their cases and cut off reimbursements."

The kicker here is the regulatory arbitrage: the practice has been ruled illegal in three states so far, but United simply undertakes its activities to a state where it's still legal. And because it doesn't answer to a single regulator, it's hard to impose stronger rules. In fact, more than 50 regulators each have jurisdiction over small slices of United's activities.

Effectively that makes it ungovernable:

"For United’s practices to be curbed, mental health advocates told ProPublica, every single jurisdiction in which it operates would have to successfully bring a case against it."

And:

"State regulators are supposed to be making sure private insurers that manage Medicaid plans are following the mental health parity laws. But this year, a federal audit found that they were failing to do so. “They are not well designed to essentially be watchdogs,” Lloyd said. “There’s very little accountability. Insurers can run roughshod over them.”"

In other words, the system needs to be radically overhauled if patients are going to receive adequate care. Will it be? Perhaps not soon.

#Health

[Link]

[Joanna Chiu and Viola Zhou at Rest of World]

Tech companies like Microsoft and Google have, through their accelerators, supported startups that provide censorship and policing technologies in China. It's perhaps not a surprise that they've supported these endeavors - after all, startups look to find product/market fit in their regions - but it flies in the face of efforts they've made to appear to care about human rights.

I've been thinking about this a lot:

"Support for the companies through their startup incubator programs raises questions about the future of these initiatives, especially as Donald Trump prepares to take a second term as president."

We know that tech companies comply with authoritarian regimes when they try to do business there. There's a long history of that, from IBM colluding with the Nazis through Yahoo giving up the identities of bloggers to the Chinese authorities. What happens when their home turf becomes one? I don't think we can expect anything other than collaboration.

At this point, that's mostly speculation (beyond existing contracts with ICE, say) - but there's no doubt that surveillance and censorship have been used in China to squash dissent and commit human rights abuses. The tech companies who directly fund the infrastructure to do this are complicit, and should be publicly held as such.

#Technology

[Link]

[Timothy Graham and Mark Andrejevic]

Elon Musk didn't just endorse Trump with his words - according to this pre-print research paper, he gave Republicans an algorithmic boost on X, too:

"The analysis reveals a structural engagement shift around mid-July 2024, suggesting platform-level changes that influenced engagement metrics for all accounts under examination. The date at which the structural break (spike) in engagement occurs coincides with Elon Musk’s formal endorsement of Donald Trump on 13th July 2024."

Despite big words about "free speech", Musk seems to be hell-bent on using the platform he acquired as a megaphone for his own interests, in the same way that Rupert Murdoch has used Fox News. To me, this points to the need for media regulation, and for anyone using the platform to approach it with caution. It's not an even playing field - not even close.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Renee Dudley, with research by Doris Burke, at ProPublica]

Security lapses in Microsoft's own products led to hacks that in turn pushed President Biden to ask for help from it and other tech companies to improve White House security. Microsoft saw it as an opportunity to lock the White House into its products.

Microsoft pledged to give $150M in technical services to the government to upgrade its security. But it wasn't altruistic:

"Microsoft’s seemingly straightforward commitment belied a more complex, profit-driven agenda, a ProPublica investigation has found. The proposal was, in fact, a calculated business maneuver designed to bring in billions of dollars in new revenue, box competitors out of lucrative government contracts and tighten the company’s grip on federal business."

The result may have created an illegal monopoly on government systems - and increased its susceptibility to future Microsoft flaws:

"Competition is not the only issue at stake. As Washington has deepened its relationship with Microsoft, congressional leaders have raised concerns about what they call a cybersecurity “monoculture” in the federal government. Some, like Wyden and Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Republican from Missouri, have blasted the Defense Department in particular for “doubling down on a failed strategy of increasing its dependence on Microsoft.”"

Monocultures are bad. It's hard to see how these kinds of toxic relationships don't get worse over the next four years.

#Technology

[Link]

[Sara Fischer at Axios]

"Beehiiv, a newsletter startup taking aim at Substack, says it's making a "multi-million dollar investment" to create a new "beehiiv Media Collective" of journalists on its platform."

Beehiiv's new fund for independent journalists will give them a monthly health insurance stipend and pre-publish legal review support. There's also Getty access and deeper business strategy report. It's actually kind of remarkable - and a clear shot across the bow to competitors like Substack.

More competitors to Substack - which famously has supported actual Nazis - can only be a good thing. The real question is how long this fund will last, and whether the journalists who take advantage of it will sink or swim when it inevitably comes to an end. Hopefully everyone who takes part uses the time to become self-sufficient.

#Media

[Link]

[Mathew Ingram at The Torment Nexus]

Mathew wrestles with where Bluesky sits in the future of social media given its connections to venture capital and blockchain supporters:

"I have no doubt that, as Cory says, Graber and the other founders of Bluesky are sincere in their desire to build an open service with a federated protocol, etc. But history has shown time and again that economic interests often interfere with the best efforts of founders."

Here's my slightly controversial take: I think there's something to learn from blockchain and how it developed. We already see that represented in the data structures Bluesky uses behind the scenes, and beyond that, an optimistic cultural take on decentralization. That doesn't mean crypto markets aren't full of scammers - there's certainly more to avoid than to learn from - but blockchain is not an irrelevant pursuit, even if blockchains themselves are not the best route forwards.

This feels right to me:

"In the short term at least, it seems as though we could have three or four competing social networks: one, Twitter/X, is the place for right-wing Musk fans and tech bros and Trump supporters (and journalists and others who need to be there for work); Bluesky is the place for that early Twitter anything-goes vibe plus journalists and real-time news; Mastodon is the place for nerds and geeks and others who like the nuts-and-bolts of social tech; and Threads is... well, Threads is whatever is left over after all of those other things are removed :-)"

Let's see what happens.

#Fediverse

[Link]

[Oliver Darcy at Status]

I literally had to check to see if this was real:

"The Onion has successfully acquired Infowars.

The satirical news outlet purchased Alex Jones' right-wing conspiracy empire at a court-ordered auction, the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting announced Thursday."

I cannot think of a more fitting end for such a toxic, falsehood-filled media outlet. Of course The Onion should own it. Where better than the original home of fake news?

Clearly the Sandy Hook families felt the same way: they actually decided to forgo part of the money owed to them in order to make this happen.

"While Jones will no longer own Infowars, he has indicated that he will continue to broadcast after losing control of the media company."

May he lose that one too.

#Media

[Link]

[The Guardian]

Given the reluctance to leave X among most publishers, the Guardian is taking a big leadership role here by refusing to continue to post to X:

"This is something we have been considering for a while given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism. The US presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse."

X users will continue to be able to share links to the Guardian, which is simply a property of them being a web platform. The Guardian also reserves the right to embed tweets when they are newsworthy.

I couldn't agree with their reasoning more, and I sincerely hope that more publications follow suit. I also predict that this won't hurt the Guardian's metrics overall, at least in the medium term.

I also appreciate their note at the bottom of the article:

"Thankfully, we can do this because our business model does not rely on viral content tailored to the whims of the social media giants’ algorithms – instead we’re funded directly by our readers."

Yet another reason why patronage models are far better than advertising.

#Media

[Link]

[Michael Kennedy and Isobel Cockerell in Coda Story]

Just one example of many of AI being used to take agency away from ordinary workers:

"The upshot was, it took away our ability to advocate for patients. We couldn’t point to a score and say, ‘This patient is too sick, I need to focus on them alone,’ because the numbers didn’t help us make that case anymore. They didn’t tell us if a patient was low, medium, or high need. They just gave patients a seemingly random score that nobody understood, on a scale of one to infinity.

We felt the system was designed to take decision-making power away from nurses at the bedside. Deny us the power to have a say in how much staffing we need."

The piece goes on to discuss the mass surveillance that AI enables. In a world where a patient's discussions with the healthcare workers attending to them are recorded, to feed an agent or otherwise, all kinds of abuses become possible. Not only does it remove agency from the experts who should be advocating for patients, but consider the effects in a state with adverse reproductive healthcare laws, for example.

This is the salient point:

"The reasoning for bringing in AI tools to monitor patients is always that it will make life easier for us, but in my experience, technology in healthcare rarely makes things better. It usually just speeds up the factory floor, squeezing more out of us, so they can ultimately hire fewer of us."

And this tends to be true regardless of what the original intention might be. If a technology can be used to cut costs or squeeze more productivity out of a worker, absent of any other constraints, it absolutely will be. In healthcare, like many fields that depend on care, attention, and underlying humanity, that's not necessarily a good thing.

#AI

[Link]

[Noah Hurowitz at The Intercept]

This should be a five alarm fire:

"Up for a potential fast-track vote next week in the House of Representatives, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, also known as H.R. 9495, would grant the secretary of the Treasury Department unilateral authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit deemed to be a “terrorist supporting organization.” [...] The law would not require officials to explain the reason for designating a group, nor does it require the Treasury Department to provide evidence."

Unbelievably, this is a bipartisan bill, despite its obviously harmful effects: if any non-profit can be stripped of its status without reason or evidence, the ability for an adverse administration to do harm with it is huge.

Non-profits one can imagine being affected include those reporting the news, providing reproductive healthcare, supporting vulnerable communities, aiding immigrants at risk of deportation, providing aid in places like Gaza, and more. It's a blank check to harm political opponents - and it seems ludicrous that it's on the verge of passing.

#Democracy

[Link]

[Sean Goedecke]

This is very good. It's advertised as a piece about shipping in big tech companies, but honestly, I think it's true of many smaller companies too. It's not true in the smallest startups or for organizations with certain kinds of engineering cultures - but I suspect they may be in the minority.

"What does it mean to ship? It does not mean deploying code or even making a feature available to users. Shipping is a social construct within a company. Concretely, that means that a project is shipped when the important people at your company believe it is shipped."

Software engineering isn't a technology business: it's a people business. You're building tools that solve real problems for real people, and you're doing it inside an organizational structure that is also made of real people. There's no way to get around this: unless the organization is exceptionally organized around engineering needs (which many small and medium tech companies are!), you will have to navigate these sorts of interpersonal dynamics.

This hits the nail on the head for just about everybody:

"I think a lot of engineers hold off on deploys essentially out of fear. If you want to ship, you need to do the exact opposite: you need to deploy as much as you can as early as possible, and you need to do the scariest changes as early as you can possibly do them."

It seems counterintuitive, but again: if your goal is to ship (and it probably should be), you need to focus on doing that.

#Technology

[Link]