Pupil Barrister

Tag: Internet Philosophy (Page 11 of 39)

The Problem of Verification

Jalena Lecic, whose photos were stolen and posted on the 'Gay Girl In Damascus' site

Jalena Lecic, whos photos were stolen and posted on the ‘Gay Girl In Damascus’ site


Angela Philips of Goldsmiths College, at last Friday’s POLIS conference:

A Major skill for journalists is to learn how to authenticate sources

Or, words to that effect! I made the note on twitter and therefore may have paraphrased. To fully authenticate the quote readers will have to watch the video of the session when it becomes available.
This quote stuck out, because twice in two weeks, I’ve been quick to share information online which has then been questioned and discredited.
The first was the damning testimony of an “executive of Sony Music UK” who described how Simon Cowell grooms and sexualises young performers, in his quest to find a British Justin Beiber.

Ronan was privately auditioned by SYCO scouts on two more occasions and, as is usual practice on BGT, he was “invited”  to audition for the show as a “preferred” contestant.  At the same time, Ronan and his parents were “required” to enter into a contract with SYCO.  Like all SYCO contracts, it is heavily  weighted in favour of the label and are notoriously bad, even in the cut-throat world of the music industry.  Simon effectively signed Ronan for life and he’s got little or no chance of ever  getting out of it…unless Simon decides to terminate.

Now the improbable perfection of little Ronan Parke has always made me feel uneasy, so I was quick to share the story on my Facebook page.  However, the original post quickly disappeared from the website where it was posted and Simon Cowell issued such a strong denial over matters of fact that I felt it rendered the accusatory, anonymous post unreliable.  The following day, James Ward posted an excellent analysis of how the attack was propagated by a twitter account @ukLegion, which has also now disappeared from Twitter.  I shared James’ link on Facebook too.


#include damage.h

An industry insider at #BGT spills his guts on how this year has been totally stiched up for Ronan Parke to win http://justpaste.it/c8g

Earlier this week, reports emerged of the abduction of a Syrian blogger in Damascus.  I duly tweeted out the links on the @englishpen feed, because that is precisely the sort of information we are supposed to share.  However, by Thursday it emerged that no-one can be found who has actually physically met the blogger, Amina Abdallah Arraf.  It appears the photos posted on her site are fake, but it is not clear whether the entire thing is an elaborate hoax, or whether she has cleverly covered her tracks by ensuring that if no-one has met her, no-one can unwittingly betray her.  I was reminded of the Ali Abduleman disappearance in Bahrain in March – I am still not clear whether he was abducted by security personnel, or has simply gone into hiding.
I have several things to say about this.  The first is that linking to hoax information is clearly embarrassing, no two ways about it.  Here’s my worst example, although to be fair it was reminiscent of a real story.  As the Literally Unbelievable blog shows with its comments on The Onion articles, other people are much more gullible than I.
The second thing is to say that, nevertheless, the internet can work as a sort of fact-check engine.  The act of sharing a link does not and should not imply complete endorsement.  In the case of the SyCo smear I, at least, was quick to share the original article and the rebuttals.  In this example, one could say that the act of posting/sharing is also an act of verification.  When you publicise some text, does it stand up to scrutiny?  If not, you have learned a fact about the world, which you also publish.  This method is something that bloggers understand innately.  However, in formal journalistic and legal circles such a practice would still be lumped in with ‘publish and be damned’ as irresponsible journalism.  But it is more akin to open-source fact-checking.
I will also say that internet publishing has the huge advantage over print in that it allows corrections to the original article.  In the case of Amina Abdallah Arraf, the three highly reputable news organisations I linked to (Al Jazeera, the New York Times and the Washington Post) were all able to correct the original article.  This, I think, lessens the possibility of misinformation spreading.
Finally, this issue puts me in the mind of Ste Curran’s Monica, a play about a fantastic and witty online friend who turns out not to be real.

Facial recognition software could get you sued or fired

Those of us who have been anally removing the tags of ourselves in Facebook photos are feeling pretty smug today, as the latest privacy scandal breaks.  By default, they’ve turned on a new automatic facial recognition feature.  Online provacy groups are worried that this, since information about what you look like could in theory be sold on to third parties.
Two links to share.  First (via Kottke, inevitably), Dazzle Camoflage for Faces.  Using the same principles that the Navy used to foil submaries in the First World War, its possible to confuse facial recognition software by the clever use of makeup and hairstyles.  The only problem is, to confuse the all pervasive Facebook, one would need to permenantly adopt a makeup style similar to the 1980s New Romantic look, at all times, professional and social.
Second, read this diverting short-story by Paul Ford, ‘Nanolaw With Daughter‘.  When companies can gather very specific biographical, personal and location data about you, they can send you targetted law suits:

On a Sunday morning before her soccer practice, not long after my daughter’s tenth birthday, she and I sat down on the couch with our tablets and I taught her to respond to lawsuits on her own. … We had gone to a baseball game at the beginning of the season. They had played a song on the public address system, and she sang along without permission.

 

Building Critical Mass for #Fatullayev

Eynulla Fatullayev speaks with friends immediately after his release. Photo: English PEN / Turxan Qarışqa on flickr

Eynulla Fatullayev speaks with friends immediately after his release. Photo: English PEN / Turxan Qarışqa on flickr


Some good news: Eynulla Fatullayev has been released in Azerbaijan. I reported last month on the demonstrations I have attended on his behalf.
An immediate tweet discussion of the news caught my eye.  From @dontgetfooled

Wow. So “clicktivism” can work after all?

This refers to Amnesty’s clever little Twitter campaign launched earlier this week (here’s my contribution). @mePadraigReidy responded thus:

clicktivism, + several years of work by @tasheschmidt from Index, Article 19, @englishpen and, of course @amnestyuk

It is worth pausing analyse the success of this campaign and unravel the various elements. It is of course wrong to say that “Twitter released Fatullayev” although some media outlets will report it as such. My formulation would be to say that the Twitter response was made possible only because the groundwork had been laid by groups like ARTICLE19, Index on Censorship, Amnesty International and yes, English PEN. This ephemeral and intangible “awareness raising” is often undertaken as an act of faith – there are few metrics to measure how effective such campaigns are. As a campaigner, it is particularly encouraging to see how this work does actually pay-off in the long term. Communicating this to our donors and members is the next task.
We also cannot discount the other effects. @onewmphoto said:

With news of the release of Eynulla Fatullayev following @amnestyuk‘s Twitter campaign, also talk of a ‘Eurovision effect’ on FB #Azerbaijan

Again, it is useful to have a demonstration of how a particularly nebulous cultural activity or action actually has a real effect. Eurovision, and other types of International comings-together, are always accompanied by grandiose claims about ‘understanding’ and ‘cultural capital’ and fraternity between the human nations. (I am thinking of the World Cup and the Olympics as the Ur-examples of this). However, although there are country-themed parties and school projects aplenty, it is rarely clear how this translates into ‘soft’ political power or influence beyond our borders.
The Fatullayev case is therefore a good and welcome example of where these cultural events do have benefits. As soon as Ell and Nikki won the Eurovision Song Contest two weekends ago, the mainstream media and the social media became peppered with negative and savvy stories about Azerbaijan (it was my job to contribute some of them!). I do not think for one moment that @PresidentAz reads anything I write with my thumbs. But I do know that we all contributed to a critical mass of short sentences that together was of a significant size to be noticed. It is definitely the case that Azerbaijani officials, linguists and supporters would have been aware of this chatter. Having all these discussions in the public forum of Twitter and Facebook (and ensuring through hashtags that said officials were aware of the conversations) would have left them in no doubt that a Eurovision PR headache was awaiting them in April 2012. Such were the circumstances that made it easier for the Azerbaijani Government to release Fatullayev, than to keep him detained. The Independence Day Celebrations on 28th May provided a face-saving, patriotic excuse to act, despite the fact there was no material change in Eynulla’s case or situation.
It would be prudent to note some obvious caveats. First, Eynulla Fatullayev was pardoned – his conviction was not overturned. This places his release as a gift of President Aliyev, not the just functioning of the law. This is not ideal.
Second, this release of a prisoner does not mean that the space for free speech in Azerbaijan is getting wider. In fact, the opposite may be true, as the Government on Baku proposes new ways to restrict discourse online.  A much more difficult campaign, not centred around a free speech martyr, awaits.

This Week on Twitter

Was it last year, or 2009, or maybe 2008, that was branded “The Year of Twitter”? I am tempted to say that it’s an accolade deserved this year too. We’ve had the Arab Spring, the Japanese earthquake, the Royal Wedding and the death of Osama Bin Landen this year, and it’s only May. All these globally significant events have been defined and re-defined in the popular consciousness by the micro blogging site we have come to know and love. In the case of #OBL the event was actually live-tweeted by a Pakistani citizen journalist. 2011, the Year of Twitter again, right?
I think this misses the point. it’s better to say 2011 has already been an important year for events, and Twitter has both reflected and amplified those events.
It is also affecting more traditional news gathering too, so my claim (above) about “the popular consciousness” holds true even if not everyone uses Twitter. This critique by Felix Salmon of the New York Times‘ coverage (or rather, its coverage of it’s own coverage) shows how the organisation is in denial about how social networks affect it’s relevance and it’s reporting. Meanwhile, this article by Frédéric Filloux points to the wider evolution of news. This has a knock on effect for everyone.
In some cases, independent Twitter users are providing a crucial link in the news reporting chain. News editors have been fuming for years about super-injunctions, and their inability to mention gagging orders in their coverage. Meanwhile, Twitter regularly carries the names of those celebrities who have sought injunctions… So why has the main stream news media jumped on the story about one particular tweeter who has explicitly revealed the details of particular super-injunctions? The answer is of course that it provides an excuse for papers to reveal such details by other means.
In this story, apparently some of the tweets are actually inaccurate. Is this a fatal flaw, a reason for heavy censorship? Not really. As we saw earlier this week when a quote was misattributed to Martin Luther King Jnr, the same networks that propagate the inaccuracies are also the place to correct them. Social networks are surprisingly good at doing this. With the rise of the Internet, we have also seen the rise of new social norms and eittiquette. Forwarding on a false story is quite a major faux pas in the 21st century, perhaps more so than printing gossip, rumour and anonymous sources. The major reason for the New York Times’ loss of credibility in recent years was it’s failure to fact-check the anonymous government sources that told reporters that Saddam did have WMD. The paper was ruthlessly manipulated by the Bush Administration hawks, and yet does not seem contrite. If only Twitter had been around in 2002-03, we may have had the tools to more effectively call the news media, and through them, the US government, to account.

Shirky's Third Way

Here’s Clay Shirky in Cognitive Surplus, discussing differing views on human behaviour and how that affects political ideology:

Assumptions that people are selfish can become self-fulfilling prophecies, creating systems that provide lots of individual freedom to act but not a lot of public value or management of collective resources for the greater public good. Systems designed around assumptions of selfishness can also crowd out solutions that could arise when people communicate with one another and enter into agreements that they jointly monitor and enforce. Conversely, systems that assume people will act in ways that create public goods, and that give them opportunities and rewards for doing so, often let them work together better than neoclassical economics would predict.

I think this is as good a description as any as to why some people end up as small-c conservatives and others as small-s socialists. The latter is the view that I tend to, one that seems inherently more optimistic about human nature than conservatives or indeed libertarians would have us believe.
Shirky goes on to describe how neoclassical economics, which prizes the firm and enterprise as the most efficient form of collaboration, prevailed (in the 20th Century) over the socialist, state-led alternative. However, the rest of Cognitive Surplus goes on to describe models of co-ordination that are neither market-driven or state-sponsored. OpenSource projects like Linux and Apache and user-generated websites like Wikipedia are obvious examples. The Third Way is often used to describe a centrism, that combines elements of capitalism and socialism. Private companies as the best way to improve public services, and all the other ideas that defines the approach (and inspired the name ) of my alma mater, the Social Market Foundation. However, a not-for-profit, “commons” approach seems a much better definition of a Third Way – a genuinely different method of co-ordination, not just a split-the-difference compromise.
Moreover, this idea of community project building on a not-for-profit basis seems very close to David Cameron’s Big Society! I am still reading Cognitive Surplus so cannot comment on Shirky’s overall conclusions, but I suspect that Big Society-type alternatives to capitalism and command-and-control will be presented. The question is – Can we use our cognitive surplus to deliver essential services? OpenSource media? Definitely. Maybe even banking and transport. But hospitals?

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑