Reading legislation by my rep, @RepMalinowski--whom I support & vote for--re #230, the "Dangerous Algorithms Act."
a. It is limited to interference in civil rights & terrorism. Good.
b. But very concerned about that #technopanic language. 1/ malinowski.house.gov/sites/malinows…
c. It applies to any site that uses any "algorithm, model, or computational process to rank, order, promote, recommend, amplify, or similarly alter the delivery or display" content. That means ANY news site; hell, any content site. 2/ malinowski.house.gov/sites/malinows…
d. I fear any opening of the #230 Pandora's Box and the right-wing will enter with their "cancel culture" "neutrality" agenda, no matter what this legislation says. Danger.
e. Demonizing algorithms is not a solution. @Malinowski has a town hall on this tomorrow. I'll be there.
f. The groups fomenting violence & insurrection don't need algorithms. They have their networks to promote their messages & organize. Going after the algos then misses and distracts from the real target, the real problems.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Microsoft is the Eddie Haskell of tech companies, cynically willing to throw net values overboard for any advantage. Now that I'm off Skype (how'd that acquisition work?), I use no Microsoft products. wsj.com/articles/micro…
I never set out not to use Microsoft products. Chrome OS et al simply led me there. But lately I'm pissed at Microsoft's dancing with devils in Australia and Congress against net freedoms. I hope this shifts.
I respect Brad Smith but the Microsoft policy stand of late is, I repeat, cynical and opportunistic. I wish the company would decide to stand for net values over exploiting others' PR weaknesses (especially when MS was there first).
I'm fed up with perpetrator-centered coverage of crime versus subject/victim-centered coverage.
A brief🧵. 1/
By waiting for declaration of the killer's motive, the perspective in the event is controlled by the killer (did he or did he not write something racist? did he confess to racism?) and the police (with their own systemic issues) 2/
Determination of "motive" is always suspect. See this book by Duke's Alex Rosenberg, which gathers science to question the theory of mind that is the basis of prosecutors', journalists', and historians' claim of determining motive. 3/ amazon.com/How-History-Ge…
Australia's Murdoch law & the US newspaper anti-antitrust bill (see hearing last week) are examples of the unholy alliance of newspapers & government. Another from India: paying for space to run political propaganda. So much for journalistic independence. That is for sale.
Once news organizations decided to sell placement in the flow of news--sponsored or native content--it was not a big leap for government and politicians to buy that space to present their messages as news, neutralizing coverage of them. That's what's happening in India. 2/
Once news organizations decided to lobby government for protectionist legislation, it was not a big leap for government and politicians to ally against the forces of change threatening them both. That's what happened in Australia and is now going on in the US Congress. 3/
Another spot-on observation from this paper: "Moral panics in society act as a form of ideological cohesion which draws on a complex language of nostalgia"--i.e., life was better before Facebook, comic books, or books....
From Angela McRobbie & Sarah Thornton, 1995
More: Moral panics "are a means of orchestrating consent by actively intervening in the space of public opinion & social consciousness through the use of highly emotive and rhetorical language which has the effect of requiring that 'something be done about it.'"
From the same paper: Targeting! (before the web). When I worked at Time Inc., we had access to incredible amounts of PII with name and address.
The pandemic fundamentally changed booking, for now networks can call on people from most anywhere without the need for studio appearances. This opens up cable news to more voices, viewpoints, and expertise. So congrats, @JesseRodriguez: new opportunities ahead. 1/
Many years ago, at the webcam's birth, I wrote a proposal for shows based on networks of new voices & experts from their homes and offices. I was laughed out of a network exec's office (not MSNBC) because: video quality. Bandwidth is better. So is attitude. 2/
And many years ago, in a huge blizzard, I was among the first to appear on MSNBC via webcam (on Coast to Coast, when I was the blog guy). Rick Kaplan liked the edginess of it...for a few weeks, until the novelty wore off. Now, booking via cams will not go away. Or I hope not. 3/
"Companies without first-party relationships with consumers won’t be able to use their identity solutions on Google’s demand-side platform."
I spent a decade hectoring news companies to develop their first-party data & competence, to little avail.
The way to garner first-party data, I argued, was to build products, services, even clubs targeted at groups, needs, affinities. This is permission-based data (I build a service for parents; you use it; you are telling me you're a parent.) 2/ medium.com/whither-news/i…
This is also why we started a community of practice around commerce at @towknightcenter: to motivate publishers to learn how to build individual user profiling and to gather first-party data (and, btw, to create another revenue stream). 3/