I mean, in Google's defense, it's hard to remain a key player in global US military hegemony, integrate AI in drone assassination programs, and ALSO be ethical, so whats an information hegemon to do? theintercept.com/2019/03/01/goo…
"2018, more than four thousand Googlers organized a campaign for their company to drop Project Maven, a Department of Defense (DOD) contract to develop image-recognition systems for drone warfare" design-justice.pubpub.org/pub/ev26fjji/r…
It that plus over 1,100 signatories to the open letter organized by the International Committee for Robot Arms Control for Google leadership to *pretend* to drop the program.
We can go on, and on, and on. I support Timnit, and all Google workers who are mobilizing to transform the company from inside, while also working to understand the company's role in upholding global militarized capitalism, white supremacy, and the matrix of domination.
I believe that to transform our sociotechnical systems requires every level of action, every lever of power, deep movement building both inside and outside of firms, the state, the academy
Workers inside tech companies need to organize, mobilize, shift industry norms, employment practices, priorities, create new firms structured as cooperatives, develop tools and processes outside of capitalist reward structures,
At the same time organized movements need to place people in office who are willing to pass and enforce new laws to reign in the power of the tech sector, and establish regulatory bodies with teeth,
When the firms violate the law, as they do constantly, they need to be held accountable, through multiple mechanisms including antidiscrimination cases, class action, antitrust
Meanwhile we need to find creative ways to resource and grow the actually existing alternatives, like those emerging from the platform coop movement or the strategy of exit to community; those can be supported by individuals, municipalities, ultimately broader public spending
We don't need to choose between supporting those who are struggling to improve tech industry practices from inside, especially BW who have done so much and borne the brunt of the attacks and pushback, and supporting radical alternatives. Get u a movement that can do both!
.@shoshanazuboff begins by pointing out record gains for big tech companies. A sobering reminder that the 'moment of reckoning' in The Discourse About Big Tech is not necessarily a real reckoning
Zuboff: The pandemic has been great for extracting user data. And civil unrest has also produced institutional data surveillance contracts.
A brief thread on #ADA30 and the future of design: Disability justice is foundational to #designjustice. Ch. 2 of Design Justice begins with the disability activist slogan "Nothing about us without us." (Freely available here: design-justice.pubpub.org/pub/cfohnud7/r…)
Figure 2.1, at the start of Ch.2, is the cover illustration for “Nothing About Us Without Us: Developing Innovative
Technologies For, By and With Disabled Persons” by David Werner, 1998, dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/gl…
In the chapter, I argue that employment diversity is important, but that ultimately, #designjustice challenges us to push beyond the demand for more equitable allocation of professional design jobs.
As a trans non-binary femme using HRT (estradiol) and as a person with two advanced degrees and 20 years of practice in study design, I feel the need to share a few words about this study. (1/n)
First of all, after you look at the link that JK Rowling shared, please go look at the original study, "Occurrence of Acute Cardiovascular Events in Transgender Individuals Receiving Hormone Therapy," here ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.11…
The study authors retrospectively compared the rates of acute cardiovascular events between 2517 trans women, 1358 trans men, and "reference" rates among women and men in the general population. And (surprise surprise), they found...
This is huge. The ACM is calling for an "immediate suspension of the current and future private and governmental use" of Facial Recognition technologies, for "both technical and ethical reasons."
I'm reading the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act that was just introduced into the Senate. This is a quick read, and does not represent the views of any organization.
On quick read: good. I'm looking for 5 things. 1. Are definitions of facial recognition and biometrics well crafted? 2. does it stop gov from using private vendors? 3. are the exceptions appropriate? 4. does it help people redress harms? & 5. what about state and local govs?
1. Definitions seem broad enough to include face identification, & other forms of analysis that are bad but not technically 'recognition,' like emotion classification; also broad enough to include other biometrics including gait recognition, or cardiac signature via laser;
The users we need to prioritize, from a design perspective, in contact tracing #CovTech are 1. contact tracers, and 2. people who are being contacted.
What do contact tracing teams need to be able to do their work most effectively?
Interface design, new app development, location data gathering and analysis, any and all tech interventions into contact tracing, can all be evaluated and prioritized through the lens: is this something that contact tracers need?