Australia Channels China: What Is Next Down Under?
September 13, 2021
Should one be alarmed about the power that social media has. Should one sorry when governments, after decades of indifference, exert their authority over social media. The Conversation discusses a new Australian law and its implications in, “Facebook Or Twitter Posts Can Now Be Quietly Modified By The Government Under New Surveillance Laws.” The new law updates the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The addendum gives law enforcement officials in Australia to modify, add, copy, or delete online during an investigation.
The Human Rights Law Centre says the bill could violate free speech, while the Digital Rights Watch pointed out that the Australian government ignored recommendations to limit powers in the new bill. Not to mention, legal hacking could make it easier for bad hackers.
The new bill allows authorities to copy, delete, or modify data, with a warrant collect data, and assume control of a social media account. It also contains “emergency authorization” for law enforcement to do any of the above without a warrant.
Prior legislation of this nature included better privacy protections, but the new bill gives law enforcement free rein and force individuals to assist them or face prison time. On one hand the ill makes sense:
“According to the Department of Home Affairs, more and more criminal activity makes use of the “dark web” and “anonymising technologies”. Previous powers are not enough to keep up with these new technologies. In our view, specific and targeted access to users’ information and activities may be needed to identify possible criminals or terrorists. In some cases, law enforcement agencies may need to modify, delete, copy or add content of users to prevent things like the distribution of child exploitation material. Lawful interception is key to protecting public and national security in the fight of global community against cybercrimes.”
On the other hand, third parties could be subject to law enforcement. Individuals’ freedoms could be violated too.
Channeling China? Trying to control speech? What’s next?
Whitney Grace, September 13, 2021
Taliban: Flying Disabled Helicopters and Doing the Social Media Thing
September 7, 2021
Images of disabled US military helicopters stick in my mind. The Taliban claims it is no longer a terrorist group and promises it will keep some of the changes that were implemented in Afghanistan in the last twenty years. Plus, the ruling group knows how to fly and do social media. ABC News explores how the Taliban uses modern technology to its advantage: “How The Taliban Use Social Media To Seek Legitimacy In The West, Sow Chaos At Home.”
The Taliban has one of the more interesting human rights records in the world. Religious fundamentalist groups (of any origin) manifest fascinating behaviors. Take that back, religious fundamentalist groups do change to accommodate anything they can exploit for their advantage, like the Taliban has with social media. The Taliban adopted social media as a propaganda tool in the manner the Nazis turned every faction of society from movies to children’s books into a propaganda piece.
The Taliban controls or influences news pieces about Afghanistan:
“The Taliban now has the ability to communicate directly with the rest of the world, as well as to control the narrative around events as it has been trying to do for years at home and abroad through a barrage of messages on social media. Experts say it effectively did an end around the Afghan government through its unrelenting publicity campaign, capitalizing on disinformation and a lack of media literacy.”
Journalists in Kabul report on Afghanistan’s crisis, but the Taliban says everything is okay on social media. Experts claim that the Taliban has a sophisticated social media strategy to deceive the West and legitimize the new “government” on the world stage. The Taliban is very deceptive and know how to placate westerners, similar to Chinese and North Korean politicians.
Afghanistan has low Internet literacy and most Afghanis are apt to take Taliban propaganda as fact. Meanwhile the Taliban as an active social media presence, especially on Twitter. Twitter does not ban the Taliban, because the US government has not labeled it a terrorist group. Facebook, however, does ban the Taliban.
The Taliban posts more messages in foreign languages, especially English. In fact, they post more on Twitter than many US and European government departments. They also post lies aka disinformation on Twitter. There is widespread demand for Twitter to ban the Taliban accounts, but Twitter responds they are vigilant monitoring them. The Taliban wants to lure the West into a false sense of security and arguably it is what they have done for the past twenty years. Maybe some of the Taliban picked up social media methods from Cambridge Analytica?
Whitney Grace, September 7, 2021
Taliban: Going Dark
September 3, 2021
I spotted a story from the ever reliable Associated Press called “Official Taliban Websites Go Offline, Though Reasons Unknown.” (Note: I am terrified of the AP because quoting is an invitation for this outfit to let loose its legal eagles. I don’t like this type of bird.)
I can, I think, suggest you read the original write up. I recall that the “real” news story revealed some factoids I found interesting; for example:
- Taliban Web site “protected” by Cloudflare have been disappeared. (What’s that suggest about the Cloudflare Web performance and security capabilities?)
- Facebook has disappeared some Taliban info and maybe accounts.
- The estimable Twitter keeps PR maven Z. Mjuahid’s tweets flowing.
I had forgotten that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization. I try to learn something new each day.
Stephen E Arnold, September 3, 2021
Big Data, Algorithmic Bias, and Lots of Numbers Will Fix Everything (and Your Check Is in the Mail)
August 20, 2021
We must remember, “The check is in the mail” and “I will always respect you” and “You can trust me.” Ah, great moments in the University of Life’s chapbook of factoids.
I read “Moving Beyond Algorithmic Bias Is a Data Problem”. I was heartened by the essay. First, the document has a document object identifier and a link to make checking updates easy. Very good. Second, the focus of the write up is the inherent problem of most of the Fancy Dan baloney charged big data marketing to which I have been subjected in the last six or seven years. Very, very good.
I noted this statement in the essay:
Why, despite clear evidence to the contrary, does the myth of the impartial model still hold allure for so many within our research community? Algorithms are not impartial, and some design choices are better than others.
Notice the word “myth”. Notice the word “choices.” Yep, so much for the rock solid nature of big data, models, and predictive silliness based on drag-and-drop math functions.
I also starred this important statement by Donald Knuth:
Donald Knuth said that computers do exactly what they are told, no more and no less.
What’s the real world behavior of smart anti-phishing cyber security methods? What about the autonomous technology in some nifty military gear like the Avenger drone?
Google may not be thrilled with the information in this essay nor thrilled about the nailing of the frat bros’ tail to the wall; for example:
The belief that algorithmic bias is a dataset problem invites diffusion of responsibility. It absolves those of us that design and train algorithms from having to care about how our design choices can amplify or curb harm. However, this stance rests on the precarious assumption that bias can be fully addressed in the data pipeline. In a world where our datasets are far from perfect, overall harm is a product of both the data and our model design choices.
Perhaps this explains why certain researchers’ work is not zipping around Silicon Valley at the speed of routine algorithm tweaks? The statement could provide some useful insight into why Facebook does not want pesky researchers at NYU’s Ad Observatory digging into how Facebook manipulates perception and advertisers.
The methods for turning users and advertisers into puppets is not too difficult to figure out. That’s why certain companies obstruct researchers and manufacture baloney, crank up the fog machine, and offer free jargon stew to everyone including researchers. These are the same entities which insist they are not monopolies. Do you believe that these are mom-and-pop shops with a part time mathematician and data wrangler coming in on weekends? Gee, I do.
The “Moving beyond” article ends with a snappy quote:
As Lord Kelvin reflected, “If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.”
Several observations are warranted:
- More thinking about algorithmic bias is helpful. The task is to get people to understand what’s happening and has been happening for decades.
- The interaction of math most people don’t understand and very simple objectives like make more money or advance this agenda is a destabilizing force in human behavior. Need an example. The Taliban and its use of WhatsApp is interesting, is it not?
- The fix to the problems associated with commercial companies using algorithms as monetary and social weapons requires control. The question is from whom and how.
Stephen E Arnold, August 20, 2021
Facebook: A Force for Good. Now What Does Good Mean?
August 17, 2021
I read Preston Byrne’s essay about the Taliban’s use of WhatsApp. You can find that very good write up at this link. Mr. Byrne asks an important question: Did America just lose Afghanistan because of WhatsApp?
I also read “WhatsApp Can’t Ban the Taliban Because It Can’t Read Their Texts.” The main point of the write up is to point out that Facebook’s encrypted message system makes blocking users really difficult, like impossible almost.
I noted this statement:
the Taliban used Facebook-owned chat app WhatsApp to spread its message and gain favor among local citizens…
Seems obvious, right. Free service. Widely available. Encrypted. Why the heck not?
Here’s a statement in the Vice write up which caught my attention:
The company spokesperson said that WhatsApp complies with U.S. sanctions law, so if it encounters any sanctioned people or organizations using the app, it will take action, including banning the accounts. This obviously depends on identifying who uses WhatsApp, without having access to any of the messages sent through the platform, given that the app uses end-to-end encryption. This would explain why WhatsApp hasn’t taken action against some account spreading the Taliban’s message in Afghanistan.
Let me ask a pointed question: Is it time to shut down Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram? Failing that, why not use existing laws to bring a measure of control over access, message content, and service availability?
Purposeful action is needed. If Facebook cannot figure out what to do to contain and blunt the corrosive effects of the “free” service, outsource the task to an entity which will make an effort. That approach seems to be what is looming for the NSO Group. Perhaps purposeful action is motivating Apple to try and control the less salubrious uses of the iPhone ecosystem?
Dancing around the Facebook earnings report is fine entertainment. Is it time to add some supervision to the largely unregulated, uncontrolled, and frat boy bash? One can serve a treat like Bore Palaw too.
Stephen E Arnold, August 17, 2021
Online and In Control: WhatsApp Fingered
August 17, 2021
I read an interesting article called “Did America just lose Afghanistan because of WhatsApp?” I am not sure the author is going to become the TikTok sensation of policy analysis. The point of view is interesting, and it may harbor some high-value insight.
The write up states:
Open source reporting shows that rather than rocking up and going toe to toe with the Afghan national army, they appear to have simply called everyone in the entire country, instead, told them they were in control, and began assuming the functions of government as they went:
The Taliban let the residents of Kabul know they were in control through WhatsApp, gave them numbers to call if they ran into any problems. https://t.co/TPOZt8AQsm pic.twitter.com/QhggIWYymx
The article contains other references to Taliban communications via social media like Twitter and WhatsApp. The author notes:
WhatsApp is an American product. It can be switched off by its parent, Facebook, Inc, at any time and for any reason. The fact that the Taliban were able to use it at all, quite apart from the fact that they continue to use it to coordinate their activities even now as American citizens’ lives are imperiled by the Taliban advance which is being coordinated on that app, suggests that U.S. military intelligence never bothered to monitor Taliban numbers and never bothered to ask Facebook to ban them. They probably still haven’t even asked Facebook to do this, judging from the fact that the Taliban continues to use the app with impunity. This might explain why Afghanistan collapsed as quickly as it did.
The articles makes another statement which is thought provoking; to wit:
And as a result, they [the Taliban] took Afghanistan with almost no conflict. I suspect this is because they convinced everyone they would win before they showed up.
The write up contains links and additional detail. Consult the source document for this information. I am not sure how long the post will remain up, nor do I anticipate that it will receive wide distribution.
Stephen E Arnold, August 17, 2021
Biased? Abso-Fricken-Lutely
August 16, 2021
To be human is to be biased. Call it a DNA thing or blame it on a virus from a pangolin. In the distant past, few people cared about biases. Do you think those homogeneous nation states emerged because some people just wanted to invent the biathlon?
There’s a reasonably good run down of biases in A Handy Guide to Cognitive Biases: Short Cuts. One is able to scan bi8ases by an alphabetical list (a bit of a rarity these days) or by category.
The individual level of biases may give some heartburn; for example, the base rate neglect fallacy. The examples are familiar to some of the people with whom I have worked over the years. These clear thinkers misjudge the probability of an event by ignoring background information. I would use the phrase “ignoring context,” but I defer to the team which aggregated and assembled the online site.
Worth a look. Will most people absorb the info and adjust? Will the mystery of Covid’s origin be resolved in a definitive, verifiable way? Yeah, maybe.
Stephen E Arnold, August 16, 2021
Traditional Sports Media: Sucking Dust and Breathing Fumes?
August 12, 2021
The TikTok video format is becoming a norm core channel. I want to mention that Amazon Twitch is having a new media moment as well. I read “Lionel Messi’s Twitch App Interview Shows How Social Media Is Conquering Sports.” Note that this link is generated by DailyHunt and the story itself is output by smart software; thus, the link may be dead, and there’s not much I can do to rectify the situation.
The story contained this statement, which may be spot or or just wild and crazy Internet digital baloney:
Spanish influencer Ibai Llanos chatted with Lionel Messi on Amazon.com Inc.’s streaming platform Twitch after the world’s best-paid athlete signed with French soccer club Paris Saint Germain from Barcelona.
Here’s the kicker (yep, Messi-esque I know):
More than 3,17,000 people watched the exclusive interview, the kind of prestigious content that would often be sold to the highest bidder for TV broadcast in different territories. Llanos was introduced to Messi by Sergio Aguero, a fellow Barcelona player and video-game enthusiast who is friendly with the social media celebrity. Sports viewing is shifting steadily onto streaming platforms, and even overtaking traditional broadcast TV in the Asia Pacific region, according to GlobalWebIndex.
What? Twitch? Who is the star? Messi? The write up states:
Soccer clubs are eager to tap this new revenue source after they were hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic, especially as they need to win over younger audiences who enjoy video gaming just as much as traditional sports. Llanos has drawn 7 million Twitch followers since he started out commenting on esports tournaments from his home. He’s brought a humorous commenting style to everything from toy-car races to chess games. He’s now becoming a sports entrepreneur in his own right, collaborating with Barcelona’s Gerard Pique to broadcast the Copa America soccer competition in Spain. Llanos streamed a top-tier Spanish game for the first time in April under a deal between the Spanish league and TV rights owner Mediapro.
Observations I jotted down as I worked through this “smart software” output:
- Amazon Twitch plays a part in this shift to an influencer, streaming platform, and rights holder model
- The pivot point Llanos has direct access and channel options
- Eyeballs clump around the “force” of the stream, the personalities, and those who want to monetize this semi-new thing.
Big deal? Well, not for me, but for those with greyhounds in the race, yep. Important if true.
Stephen E Arnold, August 12, 2021
Thailand Does Not Want Frightening Content
August 6, 2021
The prime minister of Thailand is Prayut Chan-o-cha. He is a retired Royal Thai Army officer, and he is not into scary content. What’s the fix? “PM Orders Internet Blocked For Anyone Spreading Info That Might Frighten People” reported:
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has ordered internet service providers to immediately block the internet access of anyone who propagates information that may frighten people. The order, issued under the emergency situation decree, was published in the Royal Gazette on Thursday night and takes effect on Friday. It prohibits anyone from “reporting news or disseminating information that may frighten people or intentionally distorting information to cause a misunderstanding about the emergency situation, which may eventually affect state security, order or good morality of the people.”
So what’s “frightening?” I for one find the idea of having access to the Internet blocked. Why not just put the creator of frightening content in one of Thailand’s exemplary and humane prisons? These, as I understand the situation, feature ample space, generous prisoner care services, and healthful food. With an occupancy level of 300 percent, what’s not to like?
Frightening so take PrisonStudies.org offline I guess.
Stephen E Arnold, August 6, 2021
That Online Thing Spawns Emily Post-Type Behavior, Right?
July 21, 2021
Friendly virtual watering holes or platforms for alarmists? PC Magazine reports, “Neighborhood Watch Goes Rogue: The Trouble with Nextdoor and Citizen.” Writer Christopher Smith introduces his analysis:
“Apps like Citizen and Nextdoor, which ostensibly exist to keep us apprised of what’s going on in our neighborhoods, buzz our smartphones at all hours with crime reports, suspected illegal activity, and other complaints. But residents can also weigh in with their own theories and suspicions, however baseless and—in many cases—racist. It begs the question: Where do these apps go wrong, and what are they doing now to regain consumer trust and combat the issues within their platforms?”
Smith considers several times that both community-builder Nextdoor and the more security-focused Citizen hosted problematic actions and discussions. Both apps have made changes in response to criticism. For example, Citizen was named Vigilante when it first launched in 2016 and seemed to encourage users to visit and even take an active role in nearby crime scenes. After Apple pulled it from its App Store within two days, the app relaunched the next year with the friendlier name and warnings against reckless behavior. But Citizen still stirs up discussion by sharing publicly available emergency-services data like 911 calls, sometimes with truly unfortunate results. Though the app says it is now working on stronger moderation to prevent such incidents, it also happens to be ramping up its law-enforcement masquerade. Ironically, Citizen itself cannot seem to keep its users’ data safe.
Then there is Nextdoor. During last year’s protests following the murder of George Floyd, its moderators were caught removing posts announcing protests but allowing ones that advocated violence against protestors. The CEO promised reforms in response, and the company soon axed the “Forward to Police” feature. (That is okay, cops weren’t relying on it much anyway. Go figure.) It has also enacted a version of sensitivity training and language guardrails. Meanwhile, Facebook is making its way into the neighborhood app game. Surely that company’s foresight and conscientiousness are just what this situation needs. Smith concludes:
“In theory, community apps like Citizen, Nextdoor, and Facebook Neighborhoods bring people together at time when many of us turn to the internet and our devices to make connections. But it’s a fine line between staying on top of what’s going on around us and harassing the people who live and work there with ill-advised posts and even calls to 911. The companies themselves have a financial incentive to keep us engaged (Nextdoor just filed to go public), whether its users are building strong community ties or overreacting to doom-and-gloom notifications. Can we trust them not to lead us into the abyss, or is it on us not to get caught up neighborhood drama and our baser instincts?”
Absolutely not and, unfortunately, yes.
Cynthia Murrell, July 21, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
