Grazie per il link al discorso integrale, per il quale condivido la
delusione di Maurizio Borghi.
Questo passaggio mi ha colpito:
We do expect these companies to affirm the importance of our
democratic institutions, not dismiss them, and to work to find the
right combination of regulation and industry standards that will
make democracy stronger. And because companies recognize the often
dangerous relationship between social media, nationalism, domestic
hate groups, they do need to engage with vulnerable populations
about how to put better safeguards in place to protect minority
populations, ethnic populations, religious minorities, wherever they
operate.
So for example, in the United States, they should be working with,
not always contrary to, those groups that are trying to prevent
voter suppression and specifically has targeted black and brown
communities. In other words, these companies need to have some other
North Star other than just making money and increasing market share.
Fix the problem that, in part, they helped create, but also to stand
for something bigger.
Mi sorprende che un ex-presidente possa dire una serie di cose così
ingenue, prima tra tutte che le più grosse società per azioni sul
mercato abbiano una "stella polare" diversa dal "fare solo soldi".
Condivisibile ma irrealistica, come pretendere che Batman risolva il
problema.
Un altro presidente -Eisenhower- negli ultimi giorni del suo mandato
(1961) in un celebre discorso mise in guardia il suo Paese contro il
nuovo potere insorgente all'epoca, quello
tecnologico-militare-industriale: in modo molto più lucido di Obama
puntava i dito sugli stessi fattori di rischio (il "disastroso aumento
di potere mal riposto" e di "influenza non autorizzata") e sui rischi
derivanti per "la libertà e i processi democratici".
Obama invece distoglie la sua attenzione dalle compagnie e la dirige
sugli individui: invita gli studenti di Stanford di "votare coi piedi"
per spingere le compagnie a "fare la cosa giusta" e i cittadini ad
essere "migliori consumatori di notizie", ma non menziona l'enorme
problema della concentrazione di potere e denaro che impedisce
esattamente di fare queste cose: quella influenza totale, economica,
politica e perfino spirituale di cui invece parla Eisenhower [1].
Esattamente la stessa postura ipocrita che carica consumatori e
cittadini di responsabilità per la crisi ambientale, declinando
minuziosamente i loro comportamenti più o meno ecologici o quelli che
mettono a rischio la propria salute, mentre scagiona (per omissione) le
macroscopiche responsabilità dei principali attori industriali, ai quali
ci si può limitare di raccomandare di "guardare oltre al denaro".
Ciao,
Alberto
[1] <https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp> Public
Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040
[...] This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a
large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every
city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We
recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not
fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and
livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the
proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of
defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and
liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our
industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution
during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes
more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is
conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been
overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and
testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university,
historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific
discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.
Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract
becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every
old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal
employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever
present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific
research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be
alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could
itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
On 22/04/22 19:35, fabio chiusi via nexa wrote:
Qui la trascrizione del discorso integrale:
https://techpolicy.press/transcript-barack-obama-speech-on-technology-and-democracy/
Buon w/e a tutti
f.
Il venerdì 22 aprile 2022, 19:18:49 CEST, Maurizio Borghi
<maurizio.bor...@unito.it> ha scritto:
Una reazione a caldo: il discorso mi sembra un capolavoro di doppiezza
e ipocrisia, che suggella il patto del diavolo tra democratici
americani e big tech. Con la scusa del terrapiattismo e della
"disinformazione che uccide" (non bastavano le "fake news") si
chiudono sempre più gli spazi di critica e dissenso, oltre che le voci
degli avversari politici. In cambio, si farà chiudere un occhio, anzi
due, all'antitrust e agli altri regolatori pubblici che ultimamente
hanno alzato un po' troppo la cresta.
Buon 25 Aprile a tutti,
MB
Il giorno ven 22 apr 2022 alle ore 09:57 Alberto Cammozzo via nexa
<nexa@server-nexa.polito.it> ha scritto:
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/21/obama-stanford-speech-big-tech>
Technology companies must be reined in to address the “weakening
of democratic institutions around the world”, Barack Obama said
Thursday, in a sweeping keynote speech on the perils of
disinformation.
Speaking at Stanford University in Silicon Valley, the former
president made his most extensive remarks yet about the technology
landscape, which he said is “turbo-charging some of humanity’s
worst impulses”.
Barack and Michelle Obama to end exclusive podcasting deal with
Spotify, reports say
Read more
“One of the biggest reasons for the weakening of democracy is the
profound change that’s taken place in how we communicate and
consume information,” he said.
The address came as Obama has increasingly focused his
post-presidential messaging on misinformation and what should be
done about the largely unchecked power wielded by big tech. On
Thursday, he solidified those calls, endorsing specific legislation.
“Do we allow our democracy to wither, or do we make it better?”
Obama asked. “That is the choice.”
‘People are dying because of disinformation’
Obama’s speech called attention to the grave impacts of
disinformation and misinformation – including manipulation of the
2016 and 2020 elections and the rise of anti-vaccination sentiments.
He was candid about regrets he had surrounding Donald Trump’s
election, saying his administration had long known that Russia had
incentive to manipulate US democracy but he underestimated the
effectiveness of the efforts.
“What still nags at me is my failure to appreciate at the time
just how susceptible we had become to lies and conspiracy
theories,” Obama said.
A Senate panel report in 2020 found conclusively that Russia had
interfered in the 2016 elections to sway votes in favor of Trump,
echoing findings from a prior report published by the Department
of Justice.
In addition to impacting the results of those elections,
disinformation and misinformation has also caused many Americans
to reject the results of democratically sound elections, Obama
said – noting that the majority of Republicans doubt the
legitimacy of Biden’s 2020 win.
Much of these issues can be attributed to a decline in media
literacy, the erosion of local news sources, and an “information
overload” as we come into contact with limitless content each day.
“The sheer proliferation of conflict and the splintering of
information and audiences has made democracy more complicated,”
Obama said.
‘Need another north star’
Obama took aim at the business models at the heart of big tech
firms, noting that “inflammatory content attracts engagement” and
that “the veil of anonymity platforms provide” make it easier to
spread misinformation.
He said while rising industry standards are helpful, solid
regulation is needed to address social media companies’ business
models and the way they design their products.
“These companies need to have some other north star other than
just making money and increasing market share,” Obama said.
In particular, Obama addressed the frequent refrain of tech
companies that their algorithms are proprietary business secrets,
saying they have become “too guarded” and “need to be subject to
some level of public oversight and regulation”.
To do so, Obama endorsed the Platform Accountability and
Transparency Act, a bill introduced by US Senators Chris Coons,
Amy Klobuchar and Rob Portman that would require social media
companies to share certain platform data and allow vetting from
independent researchers.
He also called for reform of Section 230, a law that shields
platforms from legal liability for content posted on their sites,
saying that “wholesale repeal is not the answer” but “we need to
consider reforms” to the measure.
“As the world’s leading democracy, we have to set a better
example. We should be at the lead on these discussions
internationally, not in the rear.”
‘Yes we can’ for the age of disinformation
Despite dire warnings about the imminent crumbling of democracy
under the disinformation epidemic, Obama called for a return to
the hope present in the early days of big tech.
“Today’s social media has a grimness to it,” he said. “We’re so
fatalistic about the steady stream of bile and vitriol that’s on
there. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In fact, if we’re going
to succeed, it can’t be that way.”
Obama’s tone harkens back to an age of tech before the 2016
elections shook the world’s faith in companies like Facebook. His
own presidency took place at a time when social media was still
thought of as a force for good – stoking democratic revolutions
like the Arab Spring.
His election in 2008 is also largely thought of as one of the
first to be fueled by grassroots social media campaigns – with
supporters of Obama having been significantly more engaged online
than those of McCain. Obama said at the time there was “a certain
joy of finding new ways to connect and organize”.
“Social media is a tool. At the end of the day, tools don’t
control us, we control them,” Obama said. “It’s up to each of us
to decide what we value and then use the tools we’ve been given to
advance those values.”_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
_______________________________________________
nexa mailing list
nexa@server-nexa.polito.it
https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
