Netopia https://www.netopia.eu/ Forum for Digital Society Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:09:51 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.4 https://i0.wp.com/www.netopia.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/cropped-twitter_netopia_570x570.jpg?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 Netopia https://www.netopia.eu/ 32 32 110360216 What Dune Can Tell You about Copyright and Creative Work (bonus: Space Swim Suit) https://www.netopia.eu/what-dune-can-tell-you-about-copyright-and-creative-work-bonus-space-swim-suit/ https://www.netopia.eu/what-dune-can-tell-you-about-copyright-and-creative-work-bonus-space-swim-suit/#respond Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:09:51 +0000 https://www.netopia.eu/?p=5540 Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Everybody’s talking about Dune II, Netopia also wants to be in the club! We don’t review movies, but there is a copyright angle here – and not one you might expect. Here goes: I have done a fair share of lecturing to students, mainly in games. Some of them want to start businesses and want […]

The post What Dune Can Tell You about Copyright and Creative Work (bonus: Space Swim Suit) appeared first on Netopia

]]>
Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Everybody’s talking about Dune II, Netopia also wants to be in the club! We don’t review movies, but there is a copyright angle here – and not one you might expect. Here goes:

I have done a fair share of lecturing to students, mainly in games. Some of them want to start businesses and want to talk about how to protect their ideas. Except ideas don’t have any legal protection, it is the end result – the work – that can be legally protected. Actually, ideas have little or no value, it is only when you realize that idea into something that other people can enjoy or use that they get value. The more work you put into the idea, the more the value grows. Of course, a good idea is a great motivation for that work. (But the process tends to change the idea on the way, hence the concept “kill your darlings”). But I digress, the challenge is to explain this to the students without killing their enthusiasm. Enter: Frank Herbert.

Frank Herbert was of course the author of the Dune-books. The first movie was made in the 80’s by David Lynch and before the new movies came out, I used to illustrate this with an image of the star Sting in space swimtrunks. There is a story about how Frank Herbert when he did book signings often met fans who had the same brilliant proposal:

I love your books. I have a great idea for the next Dune-book. How about I tell you the idea, you write the book and we split the money?

The post What Dune Can Tell You about Copyright and Creative Work (bonus: Space Swim Suit) appeared first on Netopia

]]>
https://www.netopia.eu/what-dune-can-tell-you-about-copyright-and-creative-work-bonus-space-swim-suit/feed/ 0 5540
Europe’s Digital Phantom Pains (or: How Start-up Programs Feed the Tech Beast) https://www.netopia.eu/europes-digital-phantom-pains-or-how-start-up-programs-feed-the-tech-beast/ https://www.netopia.eu/europes-digital-phantom-pains-or-how-start-up-programs-feed-the-tech-beast/#respond Fri, 08 Mar 2024 09:33:46 +0000 https://www.netopia.eu/?p=5538 Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

There is a particular flavour of European techno-nostalgia. It says something like: We used to be the leaders. We used to be inventors. We used to make the fastest trains, the fastest planes and the fastest cars (well, that may still be the case). We used to be drivers of new technologies: telecom, microchips, energy. […]

The post Europe’s Digital Phantom Pains (or: How Start-up Programs Feed the Tech Beast) appeared first on Netopia

]]>
Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

There is a particular flavour of European techno-nostalgia. It says something like: We used to be the leaders. We used to be inventors. We used to make the fastest trains, the fastest planes and the fastest cars (well, that may still be the case). We used to be drivers of new technologies: telecom, microchips, energy. But today Europe asks itself: “What happened? Where are the European ‘digital champions’? Why has Europe not produced an Amazon or a Tiktok?” (Next instant, somebody says “Spotify!” and then what?).

These phantom pains may be the reason why there are so many EU policy and funding initiatives aiming to bring forth a European digital champion to rival those of California and China. Public support will bring competitive companies, is the idea. That has worked really well for Silicon Valley and Shenzhen. The famous tech funds on Sand Hill Road are built on public funding in the form of federal loan guarantees of four public dollars for one private. 4:1. One detail: the US Small Business Investment Act dates back to 1958, giving America many decades head start. In China, the five year-plans provide ample funding for various technology industries. So plenty of public money to the West and to the East.

Can Europe catch up by pouring public money into digital start-ups? Could that bring the European digital champions we yearn for? (If you think those looks like rhetorical questions, it is because they are!) The answer lies in how the tech startup system works and the keyword here is “exit”. Let me try to make sense of it:

Digital entrepreneurs are note expected to make any money, they are expected to “scale”. Investors don’t care about the profits of the company, they have a longer view of value. Of course, the company still has costs, but those are covered by the investors. There is a system of “rounds” called things like pre-seed, seed, series A, B, C etc. Each step of the way, investors get shares of the company and what they pay for those shares decide the valuation.

If you pay one Million US-dollars for 10% of the shares in a “series A-round”, the startup is valued at ten Million. If then in the “Series B-round” the next investor buys 5% of the shares for two Million USD, the startup is valued at 40 Million and the first investors shares have quadrupled in value.

The risk is considered to be lower in later rounds, so earlier investors get more shares for the same money. Note that this can go on for several rounds with the startup operating at a loss. So… now you probably ask “how do investors get their money back?”. The answer is the magic word “exit”. Normally this could be different things, for example offering the company’shares on the stock exchange or selling to a bigger company or investor. But for tech startup investors, the end goal is (almost) always the same. Exit by selling the shares to an internet skyscraper. Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta… the usual suspects. Those mammoths know how to make money from users, the investors cash out and move on to the next case. Happy end for all involved. (This system used to work much better in a low-interest rate economy, but the exit-principle is the same).

This means no amount of EU startup-funding will bring European champions: as long as the end goal is exit to Big Tech, all that tax-payer money only serves to reinforce the incumbents.

The post Europe’s Digital Phantom Pains (or: How Start-up Programs Feed the Tech Beast) appeared first on Netopia

]]>
https://www.netopia.eu/europes-digital-phantom-pains-or-how-start-up-programs-feed-the-tech-beast/feed/ 0 5538
Feature Creep and the Horror of Opportunity https://www.netopia.eu/feature-creep-and-the-horror-of-opportunity/ https://www.netopia.eu/feature-creep-and-the-horror-of-opportunity/#respond Wed, 24 Jan 2024 18:36:40 +0000 https://www.netopia.eu/?p=5535 Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

“Digitalization brings fantastic opportunities” – ever hear that line? I’ve heard it a lot, in particular from people in public office (=politicians) and civil servants (=bureaucrats). One time, I found myself in a seminar with six(!) directors of different public agencies. Each of them opened their talk with some variation of the phrase. It was […]

The post Feature Creep and the Horror of Opportunity appeared first on Netopia

]]>
Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

“Digitalization brings fantastic opportunities” – ever hear that line? I’ve heard it a lot, in particular from people in public office (=politicians) and civil servants (=bureaucrats). One time, I found myself in a seminar with six(!) directors of different public agencies. Each of them opened their talk with some variation of the phrase. It was like catechism. Before we can say anything else, we must first pledge allegiance to the digital revolution. (Fifteen years before the line used to be “The internet brings fantastic opportunities”, perhaps progress can be defined as replacing one word with another?)

Opportunities. Sounds great, doesn’t it? But… is really opportunities you want? So many opportunities, so little time. Maybe if you’re looking to change jobs or move house, opportunities can be great – but even then, too many opportunities can be overwhelming. For most parts, perhaps other things are more important? Quality, delivery, reliability, cost, availability, simplicity… (I’m sure you can think of more words!). Of course, opportunities – used properly – can bring all those great things. An opportunity is an unfulfilled promise. It demands of you to pursue it. But what you really want is results. Your time is limited. Your money is limited. You don’t want more opportunities, what you really want is better results.

Have you bought or received any device lately? Any new software or digital service? Does your phone have four different calendars, each of which sends you reminders for an appointment that was cancelled two days ago? In software development, there is a phenomenon called “feature creep”. It means adding new features, not because we need them but because we can. It can be very difficult to resist new features. What if your toothbrush had an app that helped you keep track of your brushing habits? Oh, wait – that already exists! It is easy to make a case for more features and difficult to say no to them. If you’re already making a photo indexing software, you might as well add a timeline and once that is there you can always add appointments and reminders and an AI tool that trawls your phone and cloud services for other appointments and just like that… you have a fifth calendar sending you reminders about birthdays of people you haven’t met in a decade. Digital opportunity and feature creep are siblings. They make each other stronger and makes it harder to break the pattern.

I don’t know the answer, but I do know that we are fast approaching the point where our digital assistants create more work than they take away. Perhaps we are already past that point. Opportunity brought us here. I have one idea for a different way, though. Bear with me.

We have all heard the stories of how Japanese trains are always on time. If the Shinkansen is 30 seconds late, the director of the train company makes a public apology. It is tempting to think that this punctuality is thanks to superior technology, perhaps a super-computer looking after all trains or some kind of electronic miracle device in each locomotive. Japan is the birthplace of GameBoy and micro-computer powered rice cookers, after all. But no. The opposite is the reason. By carefully eliminating every potential source of delay, the risks are mitigated. If a railroad switch can be removed, that is one less potential malfunction. If a road-crossing can be re-designed from gates to a bridge or tunnel, that takes away one potential source of disruption. Not by looking for opportunity, but by removing it, the Japanese railway system works better than perhaps any other in the world.

Back to the civil servants and elected decision-makers. If they focus their resources on opportunities, there will be more. Lots of great potential. But when is the time to focus on results? How to best spend the public funds? How to get the most delivery for the investment. The case can always be made for opportunity. But now may be the time for simplicity rather than opportunity. Less, not more. Can we be inspired by the Japanese train philosophy? Or would you rather have seven… no eight… no eighteen reminders for that meeting that you cancelled?

The post Feature Creep and the Horror of Opportunity appeared first on Netopia

]]>
https://www.netopia.eu/feature-creep-and-the-horror-of-opportunity/feed/ 0 5535
The World’s First-Ever AI Regulation https://www.netopia.eu/the-worlds-first-ever-ai-regulation/ https://www.netopia.eu/the-worlds-first-ever-ai-regulation/#respond Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:02:50 +0000 https://www.netopia.eu/?p=5530 Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

The European Union’s most successful digital export may be regulation. After GDPR and DSM and other famous abbreviations, now is time for the AI Act. We’re told it is the world’s first-ever AI-regulation. (In fact, we’re told over and over.) AI Act – World’s First AI Regulation, read more from Netopia on Artificial Intelligence here 

The post The World’s First-Ever AI Regulation appeared first on Netopia

]]>
Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

The European Union’s most successful digital export may be regulation. After GDPR and DSM and other famous abbreviations, now is time for the AI Act. We’re told it is the world’s first-ever AI-regulation. (In fact, we’re told over and over.)

AI Act – World’s First AI Regulation, read more from Netopia on Artificial Intelligence here 

The post The World’s First-Ever AI Regulation appeared first on Netopia

]]>
https://www.netopia.eu/the-worlds-first-ever-ai-regulation/feed/ 0 5530
Why Europeans (and Floorball) Benefit from Geo-Blocking https://www.netopia.eu/why-europeans-benefit-from-geo-blocking/ https://www.netopia.eu/why-europeans-benefit-from-geo-blocking/#respond Sun, 10 Dec 2023 15:22:49 +0000 https://www.netopia.eu/?p=5525 Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Some ideas are bad and some bad ideas die hard. The debate about a ban on so-called “geo-blocking” is approaching a decade. Time has not helped make the idea of a ban any better. “Geo-blocking” means that some types of online content is not accessible by some consumers. Limiting access is of course completely normal, […]

The post Why Europeans (and Floorball) Benefit from Geo-Blocking appeared first on Netopia

]]>
Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Some ideas are bad and some bad ideas die hard. The debate about a ban on so-called “geo-blocking” is approaching a decade. Time has not helped make the idea of a ban any better.

“Geo-blocking” means that some types of online content is not accessible by some consumers. Limiting access is of course completely normal, lots of online content requires subscription or login. The problem here is when the limit is based on geography rather than some other factor. That is a red flag to some European policy-makers.

However, geo-blocking is just the flipside of something more important: tailored consumer offerings. This is one of the strongest features of the digital economy – adapting the content and delivery to the individual. Rather than providing the same feed for everybody, your search-page or social media looks different from mine. Ideally, suppliers will tailor the content in a useful and relevant way. This includes price point.  The purchase power varies throughout Europe. The price of a glass of beer is much higher in Stockholm (where I live) than in Spain (where I go for Christmas break this year) for example. The demand varies across territories.

As I write this, I get news of Sweden’s dramatic win in the floorball (“innebandy”) world cup final. Floorball? Yes, it is a very popular sport in Sweden and Finland and… nowhere else. Swedes and Finns are excited, nobody else cares. Floorball demand peaks in the Nordics. We are happy to pay for floorball. It is hard to see why anyone else would. Why should the price for watching floorball be the same outside the Nordics? There is no single European demand for floorball. In fact, there is no single European demand for most things.

The list of examples can be made very long, but the point is that is a reflection of cultural diversity across Europe. Tailored consumer offerings, in the form of territorial licensing allows commercial investment in places where demand is high. It also allows free access in places where demand is limited. In both cases, audiences benefit. If there is some case where the demand is European-wide, there is nothing in today’s market or rules that stands in the way for a pan-European license. No market failure, nothing broken, nothing that policy needs to fix.

If the idea of the European single market is inspired by the giant domestic market in the US, how does content licensing work there? Is there geo-blocking in the US? No. Licensing is completely dynamic. If you want to license your content to one state: fine. Three states: also fine. Only one city? That’s fine too. You can have any territory terms in your contract. In fact, I’m told American authorities think this is great for competition. Which system do you think works best for innovation, growth, diversity and delivering for the consumer? One where the government decides which contract terms can apply? Or one where the market actors figure it out?

A ban on geo-blocking would make content more expensive in many cases. It would limit investment into content and services. It would hurt jobs and the European economy. It would limit the choice for the audiences. It would make translation and adaptation more expensive, thus more difficult and therefore more scarce. It goes against the concept of cultural diversity. How would anyone think that is a good idea?

On December 13, European parliament will vote on a ban on geo-blocking. I see a risk that this becomes the new daylight savings time. One misguided attempt to make EU policy popular for consumers that ends up in a big mess. And in the end, nobody cares about daylight savings time anymore because our phones adjust the time without us noticing.

Did I say this debate is age-old? If you don’t take my word for it, read this opinion by a number of MEPs. It was posted December 7, 2017. Can we bury this idea now, once and for all please?

The post Why Europeans (and Floorball) Benefit from Geo-Blocking appeared first on Netopia

]]>
https://www.netopia.eu/why-europeans-benefit-from-geo-blocking/feed/ 0 5525
Where Did Technology Neutral Go? https://www.netopia.eu/where-did-technology-neutral-go/ https://www.netopia.eu/where-did-technology-neutral-go/#respond Tue, 28 Nov 2023 17:22:09 +0000 https://www.netopia.eu/?p=5522 Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Remember when legislation was supposed to be “technology neutral”? We used to hear this a lot in the 2010s when policies like digital single market and copyright were discussed. Technology neutral was more important than anything else. Never mind the result long as the legislation is technology neutral. Fast forward to 2023 and EU has […]

The post Where Did Technology Neutral Go? appeared first on Netopia

]]>
Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Remember when legislation was supposed to be “technology neutral”? We used to hear this a lot in the 2010s when policies like digital single market and copyright were discussed. Technology neutral was more important than anything else. Never mind the result long as the legislation is technology neutral.

Fast forward to 2023 and EU has the Metaverse Regulation and AI Act. In fact, EU brags about making the first AI legislation. Those are not technology neutral. In fact, they are the opposite. They are technology specific. So… are we meant to have specific legislation for each new technology now? The list of technologies is long and growing but at least there will be a great job market for eurocrats and lobbyists.

I’m sure there are reasons, but when did they sunset the technology neutral-principle? I didn’t get the memo.

Don’t want to look for conspiracies, but I can’t shake the feeling that maybe technology neutral was not the real reason back then. But if not that, then what was the real principle? And why was that not brought forward as the reason for those policies? And is that real principle the same real principle now that we’re talking technology-specific? Or did that change and why? I would really, really like to think that the European policy-makers know what they’re doing and just don’t make things up as they go. Do these questions have answers?

I always thought technology-neutral was sort of a pipedream. Every technology is different and by pretending it is possible to make legislation neutral, it shifts the power to other stakeholders. The idea has some merits though, by looking at principles rather than specific applications, policy-makers can focus on the long game and say things like “illegal offline is illegal online”. That’s not possible with technology-specific legislation. Also, technology changes and it is often said that legislation struggles to keep up.

When did the EU policy-makers let go of technology-neutral?

The post Where Did Technology Neutral Go? appeared first on Netopia

]]>
https://www.netopia.eu/where-did-technology-neutral-go/feed/ 0 5522
Flood the Zone with Crap! https://www.netopia.eu/flood-the-zone-with-crap/ Tue, 07 Nov 2023 12:34:07 +0000 https://www.netopia.eu/?p=5513 Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Review of The End of Reality: How 4 Billionaires Are Selling a Fantasy Future of the Metaverse, Mars and Crypto (Public Affairs, 2023) by Jonathan Taplin A clique of billionaires is destroying information spaces. Their agenda: They want to flatten the road for a vision of entrepreneurial freedom which stands in sharp contrast to democracy. […]

The post Flood the Zone with Crap! appeared first on Netopia

]]>
Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Review of The End of Reality: How 4 Billionaires Are Selling a Fantasy Future of the Metaverse, Mars and Crypto (Public Affairs, 2023) by Jonathan Taplin

A clique of billionaires is destroying information spaces. Their agenda: They want to flatten the road for a vision of entrepreneurial freedom which stands in sharp contrast to democracy. They strive to drive us into technological environments in which they are kings and all the wealth is theirs. This, in short, is the message of Jonathan Taplin’s new book. And it’s not meant to be fiction.

“The End of Reality” is about technocracy as a libertarian ideology. It’s about a right-wing conspiracy to demolish democracy. And it’s about how technology is a major cause of inequality in wealth and income

Jonathan Taplin, age 76, has been a Rock’n Roll Tour Manager for Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin and The Band. As a film producer, both for movies and TV, he has worked with Martin Scorsese (and others). As an academic, Taplin has been a professor and then Director of the Innovation Lab at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication. As a writer and cultural critic, he is known for his book Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy (2017). Now, to continue the line, his new book The End of Reality: How 4 Billionaires Are Selling a Fantasy Future of the Metaverse, Mars and Crypto has just been released.

“The End of Reality” is about technocracy as a libertarian ideology. It’s about a right-wing conspiracy to demolish democracy. And it’s about how technology is a major cause of inequality in wealth and income. It’s about Elon Musk, Marc Zuckerberg, investor Peter Thiel, and Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc Andreessen. It’s about the metaverse, crypto, transhumanism, and plans to resettle mankind on Mars. Finally, “The End of Reality” is a great rant, full of anecdotes, quotations, and gossip. Together, all these pieces add up to a systemic picture of our contemporary condition.

Let’s focus on one major thread in this wild puzzle. “Culture leads politics,” Taplin proclaims. Not economic self-interest or detached strategic thinking, but stories and fantasies are the motivating forces that drive political engagement. Citizens who vote for right-wing parties that do not act in their economic interests at all are not proof of “voter ignorance.” Rather, they are an example of how value beliefs regarding matters like migration or sexual liberty are indeed at the core of people’s real interests.

Mordor is a technological civilization based on reason and science. Outside of Mordor, it’s all sort of mystical and environmental, and nothing works.” Even major business decisions seem to be based on fantasy and self-delusion.

This has been an established fact; at least since US psychologist Jonathan Haidt published his influential study The Righteous Mind. Taplin gives this insight another twist. In the role of an historian of ideas, he investigates how, for instance, the Italian avant-garde artist Marinetti and his “Futurism” paved the road for the fascist movement (while Marinetti’s writings, at the same time, have a strong resemblance to today’s right-wing libertarian ideas). Also, Taplin points out how fantasy fiction has shaped the thinking of the mentioned four tech billionaires. Take Peter Thiel’s telling commentary on Lord of the Rings: “Gandalf’s the crazy person who wants to start a war… Mordor is a technological civilization based on reason and science. Outside of Mordor, it’s all sort of mystical and environmental, and nothing works.” Even major business decisions seem to be based on fantasy and self-delusion. Taplin recounts at length how Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, motivated by nothing but megalomania and the quest for political power, has been a disaster for his whole enterprise. Also, the metaverse, crypto, transhumanism, and plans to resettle mankind on Mars, for Taplin, belong to the genre of fantasy since none of these plans seems likely to be successful.

All that said, it is important to make clear that, in the long run, there is a political plan and also a business agenda connected to fantasy. Concerning business, the story is rather simple. “Technology and inequality are inexorably linked,” states Taplin, thereby taking a stance against standard economic thinking, which presumes that technological progress is a rising tide that will shift all boats equally, especially middle-class incomes. The most telling example that Taplin presents is the recent enthusiasm for crypto currencies. Investment in crypto has been presented as a means by which ordinary people could acquire wealth. The simple truth is, though, that rising prices for cryptocurrencies have served more those who invested early and who therefore possess the majority of the cryptocurrencies. (It’s almost needless to say that it’s our tech billionaires who are among those winners.)

Facebook and Twitter would not be as formidable competitors to the traditional news media without the Safe Harbour agreement

But are technology and inequality really “inexorably” linked? Other stories that Taplin presents raise doubts around this strong claim that crypto wouldn’t be as powerful as it is if it had not been pre-empted by regulation from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Facebook and Twitter would not be as formidable competitors to the traditional news media without the Safe Harbour agreement, which frees social media from almost any legal liability concerning content published on these platforms. Another infamous piece of regulation was the implementation of the “newsworthiness standard,” which made it possible for Facebook to refrain from taking Trump’s bullsh*t posts offline. In all these cases, lobbyism by the four billionaires has played a major role. Regarding the newsworthiness standard, Taplin traces the origin of this agreement back to rumours about a meeting between Zuckerberg and Trump, arranged by Peter Thiel.

Concerning politics, the bond between fantasy and political agenda seems a bit tighter—at least if one sees fantasy in direct opposition to realism. Denying reality and installing some sort of fantasy in place of it, as Taplin points out, is a core element of the right wing or even fascist political movements. One key witness here, speaking clear words, is Steve Bannon: “The Democrats don’t matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with sh*t.” The strategy is not to fight this or that fact, but to make people doubt that something like that truth is even knowable. In other words, total disinformation.

The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with sh*t.

Polarization is one effect of disinformation campaigns. And social media plays a major role here. Taplin cites studies that indicate that political polarisation has risen exactly in the years 2004–2014, where Facebook has gained more and more influence. For Facebook, polarisation is part of the business model since anger increases influence.

This is how, in the end, the parts are connected. It’s all simple and mostly obvious, in a way. And still, The End of Reality does an amazing job in not only using Elon Musk, Marc Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreessen as figures that allow to tell the story in a personalised way that is easy to grasp, but in showing how influential exactly these four men really are, both with their ideas and their money.

The post Flood the Zone with Crap! appeared first on Netopia

]]>
5513
Move Fast and Ban Things https://www.netopia.eu/move-fast-and-ban-things/ https://www.netopia.eu/move-fast-and-ban-things/#respond Tue, 12 Sep 2023 08:47:37 +0000 https://www.netopia.eu/?p=5506 Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Move Fast and Break Things was the title of Jonathan Taplin’s 2017 book (if you haven’t read it, stop reading this blog and pick it up!). “Move fast and break things” was Facebook’s battle cry in the early days. Now it looks more like move fast and ban things, like news. Or maybe move fast […]

The post Move Fast and Ban Things appeared first on Netopia

]]>
Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Move Fast and Break Things was the title of Jonathan Taplin’s 2017 book (if you haven’t read it, stop reading this blog and pick it up!). “Move fast and break things” was Facebook’s battle cry in the early days. Now it looks more like move fast and ban things, like news. Or maybe move fast and burn things?

Canada’s PM Justin Trudeau criticized Facebook for its news ban during the wildfires. Access to proper information about fires saves lives, Trudeau argued. But Facebook played the monopolist’s card in its effort to avoid paying news organisations for content – the same standoff between news media, tech companies and policy-makers as seen in Australia and Europe.

Coming up with better things to ban (or burn) than news would be easier than shooting fish in a barrel. Genocide propaganda, fake news, fake ads, phishing, identity theft… add your favourite nuisance. But never mind that, here is a more interesting idea: what if Facebook were to be held to account by the same standards as other media outlets? What if it had to publish corrections? If there were a proper procedure in place for wrongful posts? An appeals function for publishing names or personal information (no not the Oversight Board “deflection”)? Transparent procedure and proper follow-up? An independent body looking after the rules (no, not the Oversight Board!)? You know, media ethics stuff. The systems that have been developed in all democratic countries to protect freedom of speech and the public opinion formation processes. These problems have been solved. Same problem, different technology.

I know, I know: it’s just one blogger’s opinion and there is no reason why tech platforms should agree. But perhaps some prime minister with good hair could look in that direction? Probably more useful than complaining about it in traditional media, which is banned by Facebook anyway.

Move fast and fix things.

Footnote: Jonathan Taplin has a new book out. Review coming at Netopia next month. Watch this space.

The post Move Fast and Ban Things appeared first on Netopia

]]>
https://www.netopia.eu/move-fast-and-ban-things/feed/ 0 5506
Free as in Science – 3Qs to Catherine Blache https://www.netopia.eu/free-as-in-science-3qs-to-catherine-blache/ https://www.netopia.eu/free-as-in-science-3qs-to-catherine-blache/#respond Wed, 02 Aug 2023 13:48:55 +0000 https://www.netopia.eu/?p=5500 Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Catherine Blache is senior counsel for international policy at SNE, the French Publishers Association. Netopia met her at Wexfo in Lillehammer in May, where she spoke on how the system for scientific publishing is being challenged and what is at stake. Netopia took the chance to ask three questions: Why are you concerned for the […]

The post Free as in Science – 3Qs to Catherine Blache appeared first on Netopia

]]>
Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Catherine Blache is senior counsel for international policy at SNE, the French Publishers Association. Netopia met her at Wexfo in Lillehammer in May, where she spoke on how the system for scientific publishing is being challenged and what is at stake. Netopia took the chance to ask three questions:

Why are you concerned for the scientific publishers?

Scientific publishers are faced with policies promoting immediate free access to scientific publications, with no previous dialogue and no previous impact assessment.

As a consequence, some publishers may be driven out of the market, especially SMEs publishing in local languages.

More worryingly, policies seem to aim at doing without scientific publishers.

Moreover the “open access” movement has been attacking the copyright system. In particular, French and European researchers are being advised against granting their copyright to publishers. Instead, they are encouraged to put their publications under a CC-BY Creative Commons licence: this is the most liberal as it allows all kinds of re-use, even commercial re-use. As a matter of fact, it is like inviting authors to give up both their economic and moral rights.

Another recent trend consists of favoring a model called “Diamond” for immediate OA. In this case the costs of publishing are not borne downstream by libraries buying a subscription, nor upstream by the institutions of the researcher. They would be left up to sponsors, public or private.

If the state were to replace scientific publishers, this could only be at the detriment of quality, diversity, economic efficiency and innovation, and therefore of freedom of expression and democracy.

Science is funded largely by public money – should not the results be free?

Over the last years, publishers have endeavored to answer the needs of researchers for an easier access to scientific publications. They facilitate access to archives of their publications after a certain embargo period, or they offer immediate free access to the articles against payment by the institution of the researcher.

In fact, the publication of articles resulting from publicly funded research is subject to a set of high digital publication costs borne by the publisher – whether state-owned or private. An author, a researcher can decide to grant his exclusive rights to a publisher.

This way, the publisher can expect to get a return on his investments to ensure the quality and provide digital services.

By favoring a single model allowing immediate open access thanks to subsidies, one could have a “de facto nationalization of knowledge” as some French MPs called it (Report of March 9th, 2022 of the Office parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques (OPECST) Pour une science ouverte réaliste, équilibrée et respectueuse de la liberté académique) [pdf].

This could only benefit the Big Tech, who could harvest this content without having made the initial investment nor ensured the quality of the original content. They could offer their own products, and therefore make a profit on the basis on the value created by researchers and publishers: using them to train their AI, integrating them in their own databases and therefore increasing their advertising revenues…

What needs to be done to fix the problem?

In order to preserve the balance of the scientific publication system, one should first have a stakeholders dialogue, as well as economic and legal assessment of considered options, in particular on the rights of researchers and the normal exploitation of publications. Following the pandemic, the challenge of proliferation of fake news and the rise of extremism, political decision-makers should keep the quality of science and academic freedom at the center of their policies.

 

Footnote: Mme Blache wishes to share this link to an opinion (in French) published by Le Monde earlier this year, written by SNE President Vincent Montagne: Sciences : « Enrichir Microsoft, Meta ou Google au détriment des éditeurs privés serait une erreur » (lemonde.fr)

The post Free as in Science – 3Qs to Catherine Blache appeared first on Netopia

]]>
https://www.netopia.eu/free-as-in-science-3qs-to-catherine-blache/feed/ 0 5500
Two Ways To Be Harmed – 3Qs to Leandro Demori https://www.netopia.eu/two-ways-to-be-harmed-3qs-to-leandro-demori/ https://www.netopia.eu/two-ways-to-be-harmed-3qs-to-leandro-demori/#respond Mon, 26 Jun 2023 13:15:21 +0000 https://www.netopia.eu/?p=5486 Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Leandro Demori is the editor of the newsletter “The Great War” – A Grande Guerra and hosts video shows on Youtube focusing on politcs. Leandro Demori used to be executive editor of The Intercept for five years. Netopia met him at World Expression Forum in Lillehammer, Norway, and asked three questions: What is the situation […]

The post Two Ways To Be Harmed – 3Qs to Leandro Demori appeared first on Netopia

]]>
Sign up to our newsletter at Netopia

Leandro Demori is the editor of the newsletter “The Great War” – A Grande Guerra and hosts video shows on Youtube focusing on politcs. Leandro Demori used to be executive editor of The Intercept for five years. Netopia met him at World Expression Forum in Lillehammer, Norway, and asked three questions:

What is the situation for free speech in Brazil today?

It’s not an easy issue to say because we have a huge and big country and there is a difference between regions. if you live in a small town inside the Amazon forest, and you talk about dangers of environment or new hydro-electric industry, you have a great chance of being shot dead.

Talk about dangers of environment or new hydro-electric industry, you have a great chance of being shot dead.

At the same time, for journalists living in big cities and main capitals, it is not common to get shot at. Power uses another tactic against you, basically using the judicial system: manipulation of prosecution, trying to hurt your reputation. Doing tons of processes against you, in ways you can barely defend against. Trying to grab all your money and all your time with these judicial wars. So there are two ways to be harmed as journalist – or activist – in Brazil.

Is social media more a tool for activists or power?

Power. They are the power in fact. I started using the internet when it started commercially in Brazil in 1996-97. It’s not only a topic I know very well, but I love it!

I love the internet, why I am speaking here at Wexfo. But we are not talking about internet but platforms – it’s not the same thing. The platforms want us to believe that they are the internet but they are not. They are huge, big companies. Probably the most successful companies in history of capitalism. If you can take for example the great Portuguese or Spanish expeditions, or the industrial revolution, or the automotive industry, the petroleum industry – all of them needed tons of workers and capital, but the platforms don’t need it. You can run a platform and grab billions of dollars in the market with 10-12 or 15 persons in a room.

They are very profitable and they spend tons of money lobbying in all the parliaments – in United States, in Europe, in Brazil. In Brazil we saw it two weeks ago, when we tried to approve a law, basically it’s called the “project of fake news”. It’s just saying to the platforms – we want platforms to be responsible for content that is posted.

We want platforms to be responsible for content that is posted

We tried to approve that project and the platforms created tons of misinformation and fake news, and lobbied all the congress, and we were not even allowed a vote.

They are so powerful, they created an association in Brazil – Meta, Alphabet, you name it, they are all associated with this association –

Fake news officially [created by Platform backd] associations saying that the “project of law” will forbid you to post texts of the bible on the internet

and they created and distributed fake news to congressmen who are linked to protestant religion, the new Pentecostal (which is very strong in terms of votes). They created a fake news officially by the association saying that the “project of law” will forbid you to post texts of the bible on the internet. That is totally fake! They created that, they distributed that to these congressmen. The press discovered fake news, and they admitted it. And it was just a fake news distributed like a Whatsapp message, without date, without name. Pure fake news. They are very powerful, in general don’t care about activists, journalists and local politics.

Are you an optimist or pessimist for the future of free speech?

I need to be optimist, because if not I don’t see myself doing what I’m doing for the next ten or fifteen years. But at the same time, it’s like I’m watching a live show of the power of the money of the big platforms.

It’s like I’m watching a live show of the power of the money of the big platforms.

I know that it’s very difficult to confront them. You know they can’t only manipulate with money, but they can use the algo to manipulate the discourse. It’s a new Leviathan. We don’t know how to fight, that’s the problem. In Brazil people don’t know or understand why it’s important to regulate social media or platforms. People think it’s third or fourth thing we need to discuss in Brazil, but it’s not. It’s about the life of everyone in the country. I’m optimist doing the fight, but I think we’re losing and continue to lose so many battles in the future.

 

The post Two Ways To Be Harmed – 3Qs to Leandro Demori appeared first on Netopia

]]>
https://www.netopia.eu/two-ways-to-be-harmed-3qs-to-leandro-demori/feed/ 0 5486