mfioretti: social networks*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

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

  1. Because if you're selling your soul, you may as well do it asynchronously.

    Socialite provides a very easy way to implement and activate a plethora of social sharing buttons — any time you wish. On document load, on article hover, on any event!

    Demo: Hover over the following social links to load them dynamically. Socialite can be triggered by page scrolling (lazy loading the social links as they are needed) or when the user hovers over an area on the page.

    Socialite works by asynchronously loading social networks required javascript files and only loading the Social Sharing buttons as the user needs them. For example, rather than loading all social networking buttons at once on a page, we can load them while the user scrolls.
    http://socialitejs.com
    Voting 0
  2. Can outside sources verify what God believes to be holy? Can anyone verify God’s existence? Can anyone think of more hypothetical questions like this to underscore the point?

    As religious leaders expressed their concerns to The Literalist, The Literalist in turn became increasingly worried about Facebook deciding what is “fake” and “real” news. So The Literalist sent a short note to Facebook headquarters reading, “Now, don’t take this literally, but The Literalist encourages you to let users use reason when it comes to fake news. Satire included.”
    http://religionnews.com/2016/11/29/fa...ws-crackdown-threatens-religious-news
    Voting 0
  3. Now what can be done? Certainly the explanation for Trump’s rise cannot be reduced to a technology- or media-centered argument. The phenomenon is rooted in more than that; media or technology cannot create; they can merely twist, divert, or disrupt. Without the growing inequality, shrinking middle class, jobs threatened by globalization, etc. there would be no Trump or Berlusconi or Brexit. But we need to stop thinking that any evolution of technology is natural and inevitable and therefore good. For one thing, we need more text than videos in order to remain rational animals. Typography, as Postman describes, is in essence much more capable of communicating complex messages that provoke thinking. This means we should write and read more, link more often, and watch less television and fewer videos—and spend less time on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/60...iscourse-because-its-too-much-like-tv
    Voting 0
  4. non voglio farla lunga, ma in allora, come oggi, io non controllavo affatto il dato e l’informazione personale volontariamente o forzosamente appresa ad ogni mio movimento; ciò che in qualche modo mi salvava nella tribolata adolescenza (non sempre invero) era il controllo della situazione sociale e del contesto.

    Il controllo sul dato-informazione non l’avevo con il macellaio del paese e non posso pensare di averlo oggi sul web con Google, Facebook e soprattutto con le mille agenzie statuali affette, per svariate e talvolta encomiabili ragioni, da bulimia informativa. Ma in allora avevo contezza e in qualche modo governavo le banali regole tecniche (le vie del paese, gli orari della corriera) e quelle sociali di prossimità del mio territorio.

    Oggi non ci riesco più. E non è solo per la quantità dei dati captati e memorizzati ad ogni passo ma per la totale opacità del contesto e delle regole tecniche e sociali che governano la nostra vita digitale.

    Algoritmi ignoti, insondabili ai loro stessi creatori, ricostruiscono la nostra immagine, creano punteggi e giudicano rilevanze e congruità a nostra totale insaputa. Banche, assicurazioni, imprese di ogni risma e fattezza (a breve l’internet delle cose ci stupirà) ma soprattutto lo Stato, con le sue mille agenzie di verifica e controllo, accedono ad ogni informazione decontestualizzandola, creando relazioni e correlazioni di cui non abbiamo coscienza, ma di cui subiamo quotidianamente le conseguenze.

    Non possiamo impedire tutto questo, il big data e gli open-data salveranno il mondo, d’accordo. Ma possiamo e dobbiamo pretendere di sapere il chi, il come e il quando. Abbiamo bisogno di sapere qual è il contesto, e quali sono le regole; solo così troveremo strategie, non per delinquere o eludere la legge (come sostiene parte della magistratura), ma per esercitare i diritti fondamentali della persona.

    Nel mondo fisico sappiamo quando lo Stato ha il diritto di entrare in casa nostra, o a quali condizioni possa limitare le nostre libertà personali, di movimento, d’espressione; nel mondo digitale non sappiamo, e neppure ci chiediamo, chi, quando e a quali condizioni possa impossessarsi dei nostri dati, dei nostri dispositivi tramite software occulti, della nostra vita. Accettiamo supinamente un’intollerabile opacità.

    Io ho qualcosa da nascondere da quando ho ricordi: sono riservatezze variabili a seconda dell’interlocutore, del tempo, del luogo e del contesto. E non voglio per me e i miei figli una società stupidamente disciplinata da una costante sorveglianza e decerebrata dagli algoritmi. Vorrei una società in cui l’asimmetria dell’informazione sia l’esatto opposto dell’attuale, dove purtroppo il cittadino è totalmente trasparente e lo Stato e le sue regole sono opache e incerte.
    Mostra commenti ( 0 )
    Carlo Blengino
    Carlo Blengino

    Avvocato penalista, affronta nelle aule giudiziarie il diritto delle nuove tecnologie, le questioni di copyright e di data protection. È fellow del NEXA Center for Internet & Society del Politecnico di Torino. @CBlengio su Twitter
    http://www.ilpost.it/carloblengino/2016/11/02/ho-qualcosa-da-nascondere
    Voting 0
  5. The more inaccurate the article, the more popular it was likely to be on Facebook. This is more troubling when you realize that social media is second only to cable news as Americans’ primary political news source.
    https://www.wired.com/2016/11/2016-el...s-dark-side-tech/?mbid=social_twitter
    Tags: , , by M. Fioretti (2016-11-07)
    Voting 0
  6. Soon, foreign visitors to the United States will be expected to tell U.S. authorities about their social media accounts.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection wants to start collecting “information associated with your online presence” from travelers from countries eligible for a visa waiver, including much of Europe and a handful of other countries. Earlier this summer, the agency proposed including a field on certain customs forms for “provider/platform” and “social media identifier,” making headlines in the international press. If approved by the Office of Management and Budget, the change could take effect as soon as December.

    Privacy groups in recent weeks have pushed back against the idea, saying it could chill online expression and gives DHS and CBP overbroad authority to determine what kind of online activity constitutes a “risk to the United States” or “nefarious activity.”

    The United Nations special rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression wrote last month that the scope of information being collected was “vague and open-ended,” and that he was “concerned” that with the change, “government officials might have largely unfettered authority to collect, analyze, share and retain personal and sensitive information about travelers and their online associations.”

    “If a ‘follower’ of an applicant raises a red flag for the agency, the applicant herself may be denied permission to travel to the United States.”

    CBP and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, said that the social media question will be optional, and that the agencies “would only have access to information publicly available on those platforms, consistent with the privacy settings of the platforms.”

    A CBP spokesperson provided a statement saying that collecting social media information “may help detect potential threats because experience has shown that criminals and terrorists, whether intentionally or not, have provided previously unavailable information via social media that identified their true intentions.”
    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21/t...avelers-tweets-before-letting-them-in
    Voting 0
  7. We’re stuck, therefore, on that first-step level of finally admitting that being religious doesn't entitle us to forgo basic religious responsibilities with regard to the internet. We furthermore tend to simplify the challenge of practicing faith online by regarding as fixed and static the nature, structure and economies of the internet. A non-moving target is easier to hit. “Engagement,” therefore, can be satisfied by ensuring that one’s parish has Facebook, Twitter and possibly Snapchat accounts, and that those who dare to operate these machines do so prayerfully, charitably and with ample opportunities for digital detox.

    This strikes me as inadequate. Just as the offline economy forms us, the online one does too. It helps determine what kind of Christians and humans we become. It does so not only through our day-to-day behavior and that of others, but through its nature and structure. Concerns about the structure of the status quo economy, after all, have inclined many parishes to form credit unions, job boards, food pantries, thrift stores and other economic alternatives for their members and the surrounding communities. What if we did the same for the internet? Its structure has made corporate surveillance over our everyday lives and relationships a tolerable business model, while perpetuating gross inequalities of access that accentuate already existing inequalities of other kinds. The dominant internet culture encourages non-Christian values like planned obsolescence and idolatry of the new. Can parishes do better?

    I think they can. I’ve been gathering some ideas about how parishes can create the credit unions and thrift stores of 21st-century connectivity.
    http://www.americamagazine.org/conten...ngs/six-hacks-toward-networked-parish
    Voting 0
  8. In their report, the researchers imagine a slow start to the tailspin that eventually leads to the collapse of our current Internet Age. It starts with a disillusionment with Silicon Valley (“When did we stop trying to change the world and instead just make indulgent products for rich 30-year-old singles?”) and subsequent developer exodus to Asia. Europe starts regulating technology even more aggressively, and investors start rolling their eyes at buzzwords like “innovation.” Finally, some outside event—a revolution overseas, a contentious election—shakes up markets, and the collapse begins. Stock prices soon fall by 90 percent.

    Desperate companies will resort, if they can, to selling the detailed data they’ve meticulously collected about their users—whether it’s personally identifiable information, data about preferences, habits, and hobbies, or national-security files. That data, formerly walled-off and spoon-fed only to paying advertisers, would be attractive to both licit and criminal buyers. Easily searchable datasets could generate new innovations and investments—but it would be difficult to know who’s buying up sensitive datasets, and why.

    If contracts and privacy policies prevent a floundering company from selling user data, there’s still another way to profit. Most privacy policies that promise not to sell user data include a caveat in case of bankruptcy or sale.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology...data-if-the-tech-bubble-bursts/482622
    Voting 0
  9. At some point, there will be more dead Facebook users than living ones – and for those left behind, it is transforming how we experience the death of those around us.

    There she is, the person you love – you’re talking to her, squeezing her hand, thanking her for being there for you, watching the green zigzag move slower and slower – and then she’s not there anymore.

    Another machine, meanwhile, was keeping her alive: some distant computer server that holds her thoughts, memories and relationships.

    While it’s obvious that people don’t outlive their bodies on digital technology, they do endure in one sense. People’s experience of you as a seemingly living person can and does continue online.

    How is our continuing presence in digital space changing the way we die? And what does it mean for those who would mourn us after we are gone?

    As I’ve told my mother, my grandchildren may be able to learn about her by studying her Facebook profile. Assuming the social network doesn’t fold, they won’t just learn about the kinds of major life events that would make it into my mom’s authorised biography. They’ll learn, rather, the tiny, insignificant details of her day to day life: memes that made her laugh, viral photos she shared, which restaurants she and my father liked to eat at, the lame church jokes she was too fond of. And of course, they’ll have plenty of pictures to go with it. By studying this information, my grandchildren will come to know about their great grandmother.
    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160...unstoppable-rise-of-the-facebook-dead
    Voting 0
  10. The U.S. starved investment in public goods for decades, killing its young, middle, poor, and future. Hence, today, unlike the rest of the rich world, it doesn’t have working healthcare, transport, education, infrastructure. Much of it now resembles the broken parts of poor countries. If you think I’m overstating it, consider: the majority of public school kids in the US are now in poverty. That’s not just a tragedy — it’s two things. First, a needless tragedy of choice. Second, a unparalleled tragedy: nowhere else in the modern rich world has anything remotely like the above ever happened.
    The Last Great Hope

    The Internet was once a Great Shining Hope for exactly this reason. It was what economics call a public platform good — a public good so powerful that it let us make public goods of our own. If all that stuff, education, healthcare, etc, couldn’t be free…then maybe at least information could. The net gave us the opportunity to create little public spaces, town squares and commons, of our own. We called them websites or blogs or homepages. Whatever they were, the point was to create a mini public space — a place where people could enjoy stuff that you made, and maybe they contributed to, to come together, and prosper a little bit, if not in hard terms, then at least in soft ones.

    And for a while, a million little town squares bloomed. No, they weren’t utopias. But they were examples of public goods working pretty well. You could make your own website, etc, create a little community of your own, make new friends, contacts, share your expertise, develop yourself, and see a real benefit in your life. Maybe your own little town square could even help you defy economic decline, and launch you into a new career. It wasn’t true for everyone, but it was true for some. And so the internet was probably the greatest public good the world knew for centuries, rivaling the invention of public water, electricity, libraries, parks.
    The Art of Turning Prosperity Into Shit

    And then along came the smirking overfashioned would-be Masters of the Universe at Genius. They made a system where anyone could “annotate” (what does that even mean? Fear not, I’ll propound below) the entire web. Result: hordes of losers of modernity, you know the type, usually angry guys enraged at women for never being their girlfriends, minorities for “taking” their jobs, and the world in general for not putting them on the pedestal they once occupied by birthright, see a golden opportunity to leave nasty, bigoted comments at the targets of their ire.

    Let’s go back to our millions of little shining town squares analogy. What’s that like? Like some dudes for whom capitalism was more like a inferiority-complex fuelled jihad than a moral philosophy…decided to rent other dudes a fleet of weaponized drones…that they could hover over the little town square of anyone they didn’t like…particularly women and minorities…take a dump from a hundred feet up…and there was nothing the owner of or the people in the town square could do to stop them.

    Now that’s a great, as they say, business model…if you don’t give a damn about, oh, humans, and have the moral arithmetic of a venomous rodent. The guys renting the drones get rich and powerful! They don’t face any consequences! It’s all perfectly legal. The hordes of angry losers in an age of rage can’t believe their luck. They have a foolproof, convenient, hilarious way to shit all over anyone they never liked…and no one can do a thing about it. Look out below!! Turd bomb incoming!! Turd fleet…mobilize!! LOLzerz!!

    Of course, there’s another side to the equation. Remember the once-shining town squares? They’re covered in shit. Dripping with it. The gleaming spires and soaring arches are now plastered in the shit of enraged douchebags. The masses once congregating therein, discussing, conversing, chilling, sharing, enjoying, relating, connecting, living, flee for their lives. Hey — no one wants a shit-bomb to land squarely on their pate, righ


    We used to be afraid of Terminators and simulated hyperreal Matrixes. But we missed the forest for the trees. The machines already took over. As it turns out, they’re not made of steel and wires. They’re made of rules and regulations, titles and roles, people and processes. For turning shining prosperity into…shit.

    The Rise of the Shit Machines is the story of the economy over the last several decades writ large. Some Shit Machines beshit all over our skies, parks, towns, water…some take a massive dump in our hearts, minds, and spirits…and so on. Some pollute our skies, some poison our bodies, some ruin our communities, some dumbify our culture, some misinform our minds, some distort our relationships. But all really do the same thing: bury us in shit.

    The economy “grows”…but nobody but the 0.01% really benefits…because cleaning up shit you shouldn’t have to isn’t the same thing as making life better. It’s just struggling for it not to get worse. Hence, for most of us, life is going downhill. Shit Machines do this: transfer wealth to their shareholders, owners, investors, and execs…but only by taking it from the middle, young, planet, and future. No real value is created for anyone.

    Society’s just playing a game of musical chairs…or maybe a better metaphor is: mostly, we’re janitors glumly resigned ourselves to wasting our lives cleaning up a bathroom clogged up by Other People’s Shit.

    It’s a contest of social uselessness, things without any point, redeeming larger purpose…a race to the bottom to make more and more of those things…that’s sparked by financialization, the idea that everything – even your own goddamned website – should be an asset someone else can buy and sell…so robots owned by hedge funds can earn pennies a second that add up to billions a month…so douchebags with the apparent moral conscience of Satan’s gimp can rake it in.
    https://medium.com/the-shitconomy/the-shitconomy-170c6b65b190#.xd7k7089z
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 2 of 28 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: social networks

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle