mfioretti: control*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

422 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date / Title ↑ / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. QUESTA PARTE È SBAGLIATA, QUELLA PRIMA OTTIMA

    Ok, anche questi, in realtà, dei vostri dati “personali” — mi spiace deludervi — se ne fottono alla grande. Non contiamo nulla, singolarmente. Serviamo solo per capire se mettere più scatolette di tonno o di cibo per gatti in uno scaffale. Anche il marketing, ahimè, pensa a noi infinitamente meno di quanto temiamo/pensiamo/speriamo. Coop mi manda nel 2015 un volantino uguale a quello di mia suocera. Coop, profilami, ti prego. In compenso, non posso ancora dire a Famila che non voglio il suo volantino nella mia buca della posta ogni tre giorni. Il garante lì non è ancora intervenuto, peccato.

    In compenso, non sappiamo bene come vengono tenuti, per quanto tempo, a chi vengono comunicati i dati di navigazione che vengono mantenuti nei log dei provider, ben più temibili dei cookies. Ma di questo nessuno parla. In Italia, nemmeno il caso NSA-Snowden ha smosso il garante, la politica, le coscienze. Non ci frega nulla di essere intercettati da Echelon. Però no, il cookie no. E lo fermeremo con un banner, 300 spartani proprio.
    http://www.minimarketing.it/2015/06/b...ie-ma-anche-torniamo-seri-grazie.html
    Tags: , , by M. Fioretti (2015-06-02)
    Voting 0
  2. In Slovakia, data from Facebook-owned analytics site CrowdTangle shows that “interactions” – engagement such as likes, shares and comments – fell by 60% overnight for the Facebook pages of a broad selection of the country’s media Facebook pages. Filip Struhárik, a Slovakian journalist with news site Denník N, says the situation has since worsened, falling by a further 5%.

    “Lower reach can be a problem for smaller publishers, citizens’ initiatives, small NGOs,” Struhárik said. “They can’t afford to pay for distribution on Facebook by boosting posts – and they don’t have infrastructure to reach people other ways.”

    Struhárik thinks his employer will survive the change. Denník N has subscription revenue, which means it doesn’t rely on the vast traffic that Facebook can drive for advertising income, and ensures that its most dedicated readers go straight to its homepage for their news. But Fernandez, in Guatemala, is much more concerned.
    https://www.theguardian.com/technolog...rnalists-democracy-guatemala-slovakia
    Voting 0
  3. This year was, to put it as gently as possible, the devil’s playground. Oh sure, every year has its horrors and there are far worse annums behind us (the Crusades, anyone?), but 2014 proved to be a year in which long-festering social, environmental, and political problems were exposed in ways we have not seen in a very long time.

    Thank social media, or globalization, or perhaps the recent explosion of hyper-accessible dystopian entertainment (though that is something of a chicken/egg scenario), but no single year in recent memory has so closely resembled the exaggerated conditions employed as metaphorical warnings in dystopian sci-fi. In fact, a lot of dystopian fiction we saw this year is at the very least on par with everyday realities, if not tame by comparison.

    Around the world, instances of palpable, immediate environmental catastrophe and brazen, systematic oppression proliferated at a terrifying rate, which underscores a position we and others have taken of late: With such nightmares growing more real each day, where does dystopian fiction end and reality begin?

    2014 was pure, hot “garbage,” but let’s assess just which parts of it are scariest in terms of bleak satire coming to life, if only to ask if there is even a point to the fiction if the warnings it offers come too late to save us. If so, where can it go next?
    http://www.wired.com/2014/12/2014-year-in-dystopia
    Voting 0
  4. what can you do if you are — and you really should be — concerned about cookies from sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google? Here are some tactics that should slow down the leak of data:

    • Use a different browser just for social networking

    There are lots of browsers around now, so in theory you could delete all your social network cookies from your main browser, then use a second one just for those sites. In practice, segregating your web usage by website type is not all that easy.

    • Use private browsing when using social networks

    Chrome has Incognito windows which automatically delete your web history and cookies when you close all open Incognito windows. Firefox has Private Browsing which will delete your browser, search, download and web form histories, as well as cookies and temporary internet files. Safari also has Private Browsing but it is not as private as it should be and will not automatically clear cookies.

    • Use privacy plug-ins like Priv3, Ghostery or Adblock Plus
    http://www.firstpost.com/tech/3-ways-...-outsmart-facebook-cookies-92839.html
    Voting 0
  5. Let's say that tomorrow you are elected Secret Ruler of the USA, a position that gives you total power over the government, economy, and the culture at large -- everything that hippies refer to as "the system." Now, your first job is to not get beheaded by rioting peasants, which means your first job is really to maintain "stability" (i.e., "keeping things mostly the way they are").

    Immediately you'll find that you're facing a never-ending stream of protests from disgruntled groups who say they're being treated unfairly or otherwise getting left out -- this group over here is upset that somebody got abused by the police; this other bunch is demanding better wages or something. How do you handle it? Sure, you could crush their movements with an iron fist, using violence to kill, intimidate or arrest their most vocal members. But that can backfire, often turning them into martyrs and proving them right in the process -- you've seen Star Wars; somebody always finds the exhaust port.

    No, what you need is to get the majority on your side, against those vocal complainers. Fortunately for you, the "system" comes with a number of refined and subtle processes designed to make sure the complaints of the few get ignored by the many. First, all you have to do is ...
    http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-po...eople-trick-you-into-hating-underdogs
    Voting 0
  6. If you choose to record the police in the USA, you can reduce the risk of terrible legal consequences and video loss by understanding your state's laws and carefully adhering to the following rules.
    http://gizmodo.com/5900680/7-rules-for-recording-police
    Tags: , , , by M. Fioretti (2012-04-11)
    Voting 0
  7. Today in the United States, two-thirds of graduating seniors at four-year colleges have student-loan debt, including over 62 percent of public university graduates. While average undergraduate debt is close to $25,000, I increasingly talk to college graduates with closer to $100,000 in student-loan debt. During the time in one’s life when it should be easiest to resist authority because one does not yet have family responsibilities, many young people worry about the cost of bucking authority, losing their job, and being unable to pay an ever-increasing debt. In a vicious cycle, student debt has a subduing effect on activism, and political passivity makes it more likely that students will accept such debt as a natural part of life.

    2. Psychopathologizing and Medicating Noncompliance. In 1955, Erich Fromm, the then widely respected anti-authoritarian leftist psychoanalyst, wrote, “Today the function of psychiatry, psychology and psychoanalysis threatens to become the tool in the manipulation of man.” Fromm died in 1980, the same year that an increasingly authoritarian America elected Ronald Reagan president, and an increasingly authoritarian American Psychiatric Association added to their diagnostic bible (then the DSM-III) disruptive mental disorders for children and teenagers such as the increasingly popular “oppositional defiant disorder” (ODD). The official symptoms of ODD include “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules,” “often argues with adults,” and “often deliberately does things to annoy other people.”

    the mere act of watching TV—regardless of the programming—is the primary pacifying agent (private-enterprise prisons have recognized that providing inmates with cable television can be a more economical method to keep them quiet and subdued than it would be to hire more guards).

    Television is a dream come true for an authoritarian society: those with the most money own most of what people see; fear-based television programming makes people more afraid and distrustful of one another, which is good for the ruling elite who depend on a “divide and conquer” strategy; TV isolates people so they are not joining together to create resistance to authorities; and regardless of the programming, TV viewers’ brainwaves slow down, transforming them closer to a hypnotic state that makes it difficult to think critically. While playing a video games is not as zombifying as passively viewing TV, such games have become for many boys and young men their only experience of potency, and this “virtual potency” is certainly no threat to the ruling elite.

    American culture offers young Americans the “choices” of fundamentalist religion and fundamentalist consumerism. All varieties of fundamentalism narrow one’s focus and inhibit critical thinking. While some progressives are fond of calling fundamentalist religion the “opiate of the masses,” they too often neglect the pacifying nature of America’s other major fundamentalism.
    http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/8_...k_how_the_us_crushed_youth_resistance
    Voting 0
  8. Now this is obviously the roughest of ballpark estimates you can make -- and I would be happy to see a better one -- but on the face of it, it seems to indicate that viewing one personal data as an economic asset is really a lousy idea, no matter how you slice it.
    https://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l@mail.kein.org/msg02721.html
    Voting 0
  9. After reading John Cassidy and Jeffrey Toobin’s dueling perspectives on Edward Snowden, in The New Yorker, I was confused. Is Mr. Snowden a hero? Is the NSA’s policy wise? Popular opinion in my Twitter feed clearly leaned one way but it often falls victim to Groupthink.

    In search of clarity, I emailed a respected attorney to get his analysis. Though he was not comfortable publicly publishing his opinions, I have anonymously shared his perspectives below. I hope you find it as helpful as I did.
    https://medium.com/surveillance-state/f6f435f74293
    Voting 0
  10. Running TPM absent Google’s various services is almost unthinkable. Like I literally would need to give it a lot of thought how we’d do without all of them. Some of them are critical and I wouldn’t know where to start for replacing them. In many cases, alternatives don’t exist because no business can get a footing with a product Google lets people use for free.

    But here’s where the rubber really meets the road. The publishers use DoubleClick. The big advertisers use DoubleClick. The big global advertising holding companies use Doubleclick. Everybody at every point in the industry is wired into DoubleClick. Here’s how they all play together. The adserving (Doubleclick) is like the road. (Adexchange) is the biggest car on the road. But only AdExchange gets full visibility into what’s available. (There’s lot of details here and argument about just what Google does and doesn’t know. But trust me on this. They keep the key information to themselves. This isn’t a suspicion. It’s the model.) So Google owns the road and gets first look at what’s on the road. Not only does Google own the road and makes the rules for the road, it has special privileges on the road. One of the ways it has special privileges is that it has all the data it gets from search, Google Analytics and Gmail. It also gets to make the first bid on every bit of inventory. Of course that’s critical. First dibs with more information than anyone else has access to. (Some exceptions to this. But that’s the big picture.) It’s good to be the king. It’s good to be a Google.

    There’s more I’ll get to in a moment but the interplay between DoubleClick and Adexchange is so vastly important to the entirety of the web, digital publishing and the entire ad industry that it is almost impossible to overstate. Again. They own the road. They make the rules for the road. They get special privileges on the road with every new iteration of rules.


    ow Google can say – and they are absolutely right – that every month they send checks for thousands and millions of dollars to countless publishers that make their journalism possible. And in general Google tends to be a relatively benign overlord. But as someone who a) knows the industry inside and out – down to the most nuts and bolts mechanics – b) someone who understands at least the rudiments of anti-trust law and monopoly economics and c) can write for a sizable audience, I can tell you this.: Google’s monopoly control is almost comically great. It’s a monopoly at every conceivable turn and consistently uses that market power to deepen its hold and increase its profits. Just the interplay between DoubleClick and Adexchange is textbook anti-competitive practices.

    There’s one way that Google is better than Facebook. When Facebook is getting a bigger and bigger share of the advertising pie, that money is almost all going to Facebook. There are some small exceptions but that’s basically the case. When Google is making insane amounts of money on advertising, it’s not really the same since a huge amount of that advertising is running on websites which are getting a cut. Still, the big story is that Google and Facebook now have a dominant position in the entirety of the advertising ecosystem and are using their monopoly power to take more and more of the money for themselves.

    We’re basically too small for Google to care about. So I wouldn’t say we’ve had any bad experiences with Google in the sense of Google trying to injure us or use its power against us. What we’ve experienced is a little different. Google is so big and so powerful that even when it’s trying to do something good, it can be dangerous and frightening.


    Now in practice all this meant was that two or three old stories about Dylann Roof could no longer run ads purchased through Google. I’d say it’s unlikely that loss to TPM amounted to even a cent a month. Totally meaningless. But here’s the catch. The way these warnings work and the way these particular warnings were worded, you get penalized enough times and then you’re blacklisted.

    Now, certainly you’re figuring we could contact someone at Google and explain that we’re not publishing hate speech and racist violence. We’re reporting on it. Not really. We tried that. We got back a message from our rep not really understanding the distinction and cheerily telling us to try to operate within the no hate speech rules. And how many warnings until we’re blacklisted? Who knows?

    If we were cut off, would that be Adexchange (the ads) or DoubleClick for Publishers (the road) or both? Who knows?

    If the first stopped we’d lose a big chunk of money that wouldn’t put us out of business but would likely force us to retrench. If we were kicked off the road more than half of our total revenue would disappear instantly and would stay disappeared until we found a new road – i.e., a new ad serving service or technology. At a minimum that would be a devastating blow that would require us to find a totally different ad serving system, make major technical changes to the site to accommodate the new system and likely not be able to make as much from ads ever again. That’s not including some unknown period of time – certainly weeks at least – in which we went with literally no ad revenue.

    Needless to say, the impact of this would be cataclysmic and could easily drive us out of business.

    Now, that’s never happened. And this whole scenario stems from what is at least a well-intentioned effort not to subsidize hate speech and racist groups. Again, it hasn’t happened. So in some sense the cataclysmic scenario I’m describing is as much a product of my paranoia as something Google could or might do. But when an outside player has that much power, often acts arbitrarily (even when well-intentioned) and is almost impossible to communicate with, a significant amount of paranoia is healthy and inevitable.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-serf-on-googles-farm
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 43 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: control

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle