Friday, 22 January 2021

New story in Technology from Time: We Need a Fundamental Reset.’ Shoshana Zuboff on Building an Internet That Lets Democracy Flourish



Shoshana Zuboff, author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, argues the threat to our democracy won’t recede unless we address the fundamental flaws of the business model that companies like Google and Facebook have ridden to market dominance—a model built on extracting data about our behaviors, and using the insights from those data to manipulate us. Zuboff spoke to TIME on what to expect from the next 10 years.

The details of the algorithms used by big tech platforms are known to nobody outside the companies that operate them. How do you begin to regulate something like that?

We have backed ourselves into an untenable social framework, where a few giant companies own and operate the Internet. The companies are black boxes, outside of societal influence and democratic control. Their surveillance economics compel them to extract data from our lives at a massive scale. They simply claimed the right to treat our private lives as raw material for their profit. The data come from us, but they are not for us. The more they track us and engage us, the more data they gather, the better they can target, manipulate, and predict future behavior— insights that they sell to lucrative markets of business customers. Algorithms are engineered to amplify the most extreme, angry, toxic content, drawing people in to maximize data extraction.

These operations undermine human autonomy and create huge societal asymmetries of knowledge and power—a whole new dimension of inequality. We are learning the hard way about their destructive effects on society and democracy. These systems can be regulated, but the fact is that we’ve barely even tried so far. Important new legislative proposals in the E.U. and the U.K. would for the first time insist that the largest tech platforms are accountable to audit and oversight, the rule of law and the established rights of citizens. The message is that democracy is finally on the move after two decades of surveillance capitalism having all the power.

Casting your gaze forward to 2030: What do democracy, society and our social platforms look like if we embark upon a new course?

Conversations about democracy, technology and the economic dominance of surveillance capitalism are now inseparable. Looking ahead to the year 2030, I put my bet on democracy because it’s the best idea humanity has ever had, despite all of its obvious imperfections. When I wake up every morning I’m thinking about what I can do to contribute to this, so that our societies mobilize to double down on democracy.

This begins with saying out loud that the current state of affairs is intolerable. Massive commercial surveillance for the sake of a few companies is disfiguring our societies. Intolerable. My kids discuss encryption software and how to hide in their own lives from invasive tracking and data extraction. Intolerable. Our public discourse is ruled by a handful of people for the sake of their profits. We never voted for them and cannot influence them.

Intolerable. We are relegated to bystander status in our own societies. Intolerable. As citizens we begin by joining together in our communities, organizations, associations, political networks to demand an end to commercial surveillance. Our lawmakers hear from the tech lobbyists every day. They need to feel us at their backs instead. We are poised at a new beginning, and not a moment too late. If we do that, 2030 will be fundamentally different than the horrors that we’re experiencing today.

Tech platforms hold so many promises for connections across boundaries. What benefits can they still bring to the world?

Facebook entered our lives with great promise. We want to be connected. Just as a century ago we embraced the telephone, we embraced Facebook. Then surveillance capitalism was invented and the whole project turned extractive and adversarial. It’s no longer about connection, but about exploiting personal information for profit. That’s what leads to amplification of extremism and all the rest. So, let’s go back to the original promise and do it right. The boundaries between the virtual and real worlds have melted, and therefore the laws and rights that protect us must govern both.

People should have the rights to decide what becomes data and what remains private. We must have the rights to decide how those data are shared, and for what purpose. We will need new institutions and pathways so that data can be used to enhance our lives, communities, and societies. This was the original promise of the digital age, and it remains within our reach. We’ve been hijacked, but we can change the trajectory.

Instead of massive concentrations of data to manipulate our commercial and political behavior, data becomes a critical resource for people and society. We use it to enhance our cities, towns, and neighborhoods; to make sure everybody’s got food; everybody’s got a doctor and a teacher. We cure diseases and work on the climate crisis. We clear the space for new kinds of businesses that actually care about people and want to solve our problems. There’s no tweaking any of this to get us where we need to go. We need a fundamental reset.

If any of this sounds impossibly idealistic, I offer two thoughts. First, we learned in the 20th century how to tether industrial capitalism to democracy and create a more equal and prosperous society. We’ve strayed from that vision, but we are on our way back to it, now for a digital century. Second, our sense of the possible has been crippled by two decades of helplessness and resignation under the thumb of the tech giants. That too is changing as we come to understand the wizard behind the curtain. Right now, we are eager for change, and every path forward leads through democracy guided by a shared vision of a democratic digital future.

New story in Technology from Time: Big Tech’s Business Model Is a Threat to Democracy. Here’s How to Build a Fairer Digital Future



The Trump era ended in 2021 with a violent mob storming the seat of American democracy. Among the many factors behind the riot—from white supremacy to President Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric—experts largely agree that the flourishing of misinformation online played a major part. But when we look back on the 2020s, will that dark day in January be seen as a crescendo, or as an omen?

For many of the most thoughtful analysts of 21st century democracy, any answer to that question runs through the terrain of Silicon Valley. Social media has connected families across oceans, al- lowed political movements to blossom and reduced friction in many parts of our lives. It has also led to the rise of industrial-scale misinformation and hate speech, left many of us depressed or addicted, and thrust several corporations into unprecedented roles as the arbiters of our new online public square. Our relationships, the way we’re governed and the fates of businesses large and small all hinge on algorithms understood by few and accountable to even fewer.

This was made clear to many Americans in the days after the Capitol riot, when Trump was suspended from Twitter, Facebook and eventually YouTube for his role in inciting the violence. Some denounced the moves as censorship; others wondered why it had taken so long. One thing most agreed on: Silicon Valley CEOs should not be the ones making such momentous decisions.

Under President Joe Biden, tech reform will take on a new, almost existential urgency for American democracy. With the new Congress, his Administration can set the terms to regulate an industry that, since its birth amid the tech optimism of the 1990s, has produced the most powerful corporations on earth while escaping almost all oversight. “This decade is critical,” says Shoshana Zuboff, a professor emerita at Harvard Business School and the author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. “Our sense of the possible has been crippled by two decades of helplessness and resignation under the thumb of the tech giants. That is changing as we come to understand the wizard be- hind the curtain. Right now, we are eager for change.”

The global tide of public opinion is turning against the tech companies. Activists have been sounding the alarm bell for years, particularly after 2017 Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, when hate speech shared by extremists on Facebook fanned the flames of ethnic cleansing, which the platform later admitted it did not do enough to prevent. The Cambridge Analytica scandal of 2018 brought home to people that personal data they had given up so freely to Facebook could be used against them. And while the platforms say they are doing all they can to scrub misinformation, hate speech and organized violence from their sites at scale, they’re often failing. The consequences of those so-called online harms appear in the offine world, in ISIS recruitment, white-supremacist terror, vaccine skepticism and the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories like QAnon.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, testifying remotely during a Senate hearing on Section 230, on Oct. 28
Michael Reynolds—Pool/Getty ImagesMark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, testifying remotely during a Senate hearing on Section 230, on Oct. 28

“Social media has introduced this large-scale vulnerability into our media ecosystem,” says Joan Donovan, research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. “And they want to deal with it on a case-by-case basis rather than looking at the design of their products.” Like other experts, Donovan says the core problem with the social platforms lies in their algorithms that choose to amplify content according to the amount of “engagement” it provokes. Posts that are hateful or controversial or play into preconceived biases tend to gain more likes, comments and shares than those that are thoughtful, lengthy or nuanced.

“The platforms want people to stay on their sites as long as possible, and so there was always an incentive for content that was going to be emotionally resonant,” says Whitney Phillips, an assistant professor at the Syracuse University department of communication and rhetorical studies. “It’s not that these platforms love hate speech. It’s that their algorithms were designed to make sure people were seeing the kinds of things that were going to keep them on the site.”

The unaccountable power of the tech platforms lies not just in the algorithms that dictate what posts we see, but also in how that translates to profits. As Zuboff argues, the wealth of the Big Tech companies has come from extracting data about our behaviors and using the insights from those data to manipulate us in ways that are fundamentally incompatible with democratic values. Our emotions and behavior can now be intentionally, and secretively, manipulated by the platforms: in 2014, Facebook revealed it had conducted a study that found it could successfully make people more happy, or sad, by weighting posts differently in the News Feed. And it has long boasted that its I VOTED sticker increases voter turnout.

The business models of Facebook and Google are grounded in that manipulative power, because advertisers who want to know how people will behave will pay handsome sums to steer that behavior. But the same business model has produced personal news feeds that let anyone choose their own reality, and a shared delusion that propelled thousands of Ameri- cans toward the U.S. Capitol gates.

In the brIghter future proposed by Donovan, Phillips and others, the deplatforming of a figure like Trump would be a last resort—something that could be avoided entirely, given time, by tweaking the algorithms so as to push misinformation, hatred and violence out of the center of our political discourse and back to the fringes where it came from.

Movement is already under way to build that future. Even before Biden took office, federal and state enforcers were pursuing new antitrust cases against Facebook and Google with renewed vigor, which could result in the platforms facing massive fines or even being broken up. Still, experts say, breaking up the firms will do nothing unless fundamental safeguards are put in place to limit their business models in a way similar to how strict regulations exist for food safety and aviation, for example.

One measure touted by President Biden has been the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal law that protects social media companies from being sued for hosting illegal content (a provision that allowed them to scale quickly and without risk). The platforms oppose the outright repeal of Section 230, arguing that it would force them to censor more content. Experts say Biden will need to not just repeal the law but to replace it with a progressive, future-oriented version that gives social platforms the protections they need to exist but also offers built-in mechanisms to hold them to ac- count for their worst excesses.

Across the Atlantic, there is already a model that American reformers could choose to follow. In December, the E.U. and U.K. each proposed sweeping new laws that would force tech companies to make their algorithms more transparent and, eventually,

accountable to democratically elected lawmakers. A key part of the E.U.’s proposal is that large tech companies could be fined up to 6% of their annual global revenue (several billions of dollars) if they don’t open up their algorithms to public scrutiny and act swiftly to counter societal harms stemming from their business models. Crucially, however, the law would safeguard platforms from liability for hosting illegal content unless they were shown to be consistently negligent about removing it.

The architects of those laws say the U.S. should not act too hastily. “Repealing Section 230 would probably have massive unintended consequences for privacy and free speech,” says Felix Kartte, a former E.U. official who helped draft the bloc’s proposed Big Tech regulation. “Instead, U.S. lawmakers should join the E.U. in forcing tech companies to protect the rights and safety of their users and to mitigate large-scale threats to democracy. Rather than regulating content, this would imply holding Big Tech to account for the ways in which their design features curate and amplify content.” Welcoming Biden’s Inauguration as a “new dawn” on Jan. 20, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said she would like to work with the new U.S. President to write a common digital “rule book” to rein in the “unbridled power held by the big Internet giants.”

Even under Biden, one significant roadblock re-mains: the fact that business as usual is highly profitable for the Big Tech companies. Social media’s appeal is in creating community, Zuboff notes. “But Facebook’s $724 billion market capitalization doesn’t come from connecting us,” she says. “It comes from extracting from our connection.”

While tech CEOs say they welcome regulation, Silicon Valley lobbyists in Washington are frantically working to pre-empt any restrictive legislation that might affect their burgeoning wallets. (Facebook and Amazon each spent more money on federal lobbying in the first three quarters of 2020 than in the same period in any previous year, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.) “It’s really going to matter who specifically the Biden Administration listens to,” Donovan says. “If you get the platform companies’ conceptualization of the problem, it’s in- dividual pieces of content. If you get the researchers’ approach to the problem, it’s the design of the service.”

Fixes to these problems won’t happen overnight. Phillips, the Syracuse professor, offers a metaphor of the platforms as factories leaking toxic waste into our democracies. As well as plugging the leak, and regulating the factories, and maybe looking for a cleaner form of energy altogether, the process of detoxifying more than a decade’s worth of pollution will take time. Still, if democracy reasserts itself over the tech giants in the years to come, the year 2030 will be a brighter one for our humanity and our democracies.

This appears in the February 1, 2021 issue of TIME.

New story in Technology from Time: Google Threatens to Pull Out of Australia Over Plan to Make It Pay for News



(WELLINGTON, New Zealand) — Google on Friday threatened to make its search engine unavailable in Australia if the government went ahead with plans to make tech giants pay for news content.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison quickly hit back, saying “we don’t respond to threats.”

“Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia,” Morrison told reporters in Brisbane. “That’s done in our Parliament. It’s done by our government. And that’s how things work here in Australia.”

Morrison’s comments came after Mel Silva, the managing director of Google Australia and New Zealand, told a Senate inquiry into the bill that the new rules would be unworkable.

“If this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google search available in Australia,” Silva told senators. “And that would be a bad outcome not only for us, but also for the Australian people, media diversity, and the small businesses who use our products every day.”

The mandatory code of conduct proposed by the government aims to make Google and Facebook pay Australian media companies fairly for using news content they siphon from news sites.

Silva said it was willing to pay a wide and diverse group of news publishers for the value they added, but not under the rules as proposed, which included payments for links and snippets.

She said the code’s “biased arbitration model” also posed unmanageable financial and operational risks for Google. She suggested a series of tweaks to the bill.

“We feel there is a workable path forward,” Silva said.

Like in many other countries, Google dominates internet searches in Australia. Silva told senators about 95% of searches in the nation are done through Google.

Asked by one senator how much tax it pays, Silva said last year it paid about 59 million Australian dollars ($46 million) on revenues of AU$4.8 billion ($3.7 billion).

Facebook also opposes the rules and has threatened to remove news stories from its site in Australia. Simon Milner, a Facebook vice president, said the sheer volume of deals it would have to strike would be unworkable.

The Australia Institute, an independent think tank, said lawmakers should stand firm against Google’s bullying.

“Google’s testimony today is part of a pattern of threatening behavior that is chilling for anyone who values our democracy,” said Peter Lewis, the director of the institute’s Centre for Responsible Technology.

Thursday, 21 January 2021

New story in Technology from Time: Why Amazon’s Move to Drop Parler Is a Big Deal for the Future of the Internet



Apple, Google, and Amazon have all made one thing abundantly clear over the past two weeks: they’re not playing any Parler games.

Following Jan. 6’s attack on the U.S. Capitol, the trio—some of the world’s most powerful and influential companies, and among the top five U.S. firms by market capitalization—quickly booted Parler, an upstart social media platform that’s become a right-wing darling and was reportedly used by many of the Capitol insurrectionists, from the App Store, Google Play store, and Amazon Web Services, or AWS. Parler, the tech giants argued, has not done enough to moderate or police content posted there, and was thus in violation of their various terms of service.

Much has been made over Apple and Google’s decisions, and for good reason: it’s a household name and pretty much everyone with a smartphone interacts with the App Store or Google Play store on a regular basis. But the decision by AWS may be a seminal moment in the slow evolution of the Internet from government- and academia-driven innovation to a corporatist marketplace.

When Apple or Google shows a company the door, it means that firm’s app will no longer be available for download through the respective company’s app store. That’s a big blow, to be sure—just ask Fortnite creator Epic Games, which is engaged in an epic legal battle with Apple after getting kicked off the App Store over its attempt to bypass Apple’s 30% cut from Epic’s sales there. But even without the App Store, Fortnite’s doing just fine, playable on a swath of other platforms, from Android smartphones to Sony’s PlayStation consoles. If you want to distribute a mobile app, Apple and Google are pretty much the only games in town—a problematic duopoly, to be sure, but you can do a lot with the mobile web these days; not everyone needs an app.

Amazon kicking a company off AWS, however, can be a death punch. AWS isn’t an app store, it’s a cloud computing service. In ye olden times, companies that wanted to do much of anything having to do with the Internet generally had to run their own servers, a complicated, costly and time-consuming enterprise mostly reserved for the largest firms. Then came cloud providers like AWS, which rent servers (and offer myriad other services) on demand—you or I could go over to AWS and have something running on AWS servers in minutes.

Cloud computing seems basic today, but it was a revolutionary concept, serving as the backbone for pretty much the entire modern digital startup ecosystem—eliminating the costly and time-consuming process of spinning up your own servers got rid of an immense hurtle for fledgling companies, making them better able to compete with—and in some cases topple—existing hegemons. But that convenience came at a cost: modern Internet services are increasingly built on AWS and its rivals, like Microsoft Azure and IBM Cloud. That has given those firms tremendous sway over what conduct is and is not acceptable on the Internet—in terms of free speech, they have become even more powerful than, say, Apple. It’s one thing to stop offering an app, it’s another to destabilize or block another company’s entire online operation.

Whether AWS and rival services should wield such power is the central debate in Parler’s subsequent lawsuit against Amazon, which underscores just how reliant Parler was upon AWS—Parler, the suit says, has “no other options” to be online other than AWS. That’s a dubious claim at best: theoretically speaking, there’s little stopping Parler from going old-school and running its own servers, especially if they’re hosted outside the United States, a common move among similarly dubious services looking to avoid the wrath of the moderators, be they corporate overlords or law enforcement (indeed, Parler has since turned to a Russian company for help in getting at least partially online). There are plenty of AWS alternatives, too. But one consequence of building a service to run on a platform like AWS is that it can be awfully hard to migrate elsewhere—engineers might “optimize their entire tech stack” for AWS—or, in English, make everything work well with it in a way that’s difficult to transpose. And it’s doubtful that few of AWS’ rivals would welcome Parler for the same reasons Amazon has rejected it.

Based on the lawsuit it seems that Amazon was within its rights when kicking Parler off its platform—expect the company’s lawsuit to be thrown out—because even prior to Jan. 6 AWS had raised questions about how Parler was moderating violent threats.

It was also probably the right move, especially amid concerns that extremists were using social media and encrypted chat apps to plan more chaos during President Joe Biden’s inauguration. And even if Parler could easily migrate to its own servers, there would be other ways to counter it, including pressuring companies who advertise there, offer it services like cybersecurity protection, or otherwise support it. Nonetheless, the episode underscores the dramatic extent to which the Internet—once popularly imagined as a digital Wild West of free thought—is now very much under corporate control. What that means will likely dominate the years ahead.

New story in Technology from Time: People Have Turned Bernie Sanders’ Inauguration Fashion Into So Much More Than Your Standard Meme



Every big event now has a picture or two that spins off into an internet meme. But what started as a series of photos of Sen. Bernie Sanders arriving at President Joe Biden’s Inauguration in typical Bernie fashion has evolved into so much more.

Serving what one Twitter user aptly described as “dressed to stand on line at the post office” chic, Sanders rolled up to Capitol Hill on Wednesday wearing a familiar beige coat, patterned mittens and a face mask, with a manilla envelope tucked underneath his arm. Strikingly casual amid a sea of inauguration day refinery, it was a look that immediately caught the internet’s eye.

The photo of Sanders making his way down the Capitol steps was enough to get the meme train rolling. However, once a second shot of the bundled up senator perched cross-legged on his socially distanced folding chair made its way online, the Democratic presidential primary candidate officially became the viral star of the day. It wasn’t long before Bernie memes were, to put it lightly, everywhere.

The story behind Sanders’ instantly iconic (and cold weather-practical) look also began to circulate. Internet sleuths quickly unearthed the fact that not only did Bernie appear to be wearing the same coat from his infamous “I am once again asking” campaign ad (a legendary meme in itself), but that his mittens had been gifted to him by a Vermont teacher who made them out of repurposed wool sweaters and recycled plastic bottles.

As the day wore on, social media creatives worked to evolve “Bernie Sanders in a Chair” beyond the confines of a standard meme. Mere minutes after Biden was officially sworn in as President, a Twitter user had already created a transparent PNG of the image to allow others to easily photoshop Bernie into whatever scene they wanted. Soon after, Bernie was popping up everywhere from the Last Supper to album covers to New York City street corners.

A few hours later, another ingenious Bernie fan had created a Snapchat lens that allowed users to place Bernie in a chair smack dab in the middle of their own homes (or anywhere else they happened to be). What better motivator to get some work done than the vision of a harried politician staring at you from across the room?

And why stop there? Soon, Bernie was going global thanks to a website created by Twitter user Nick Sawhney that let people insert Bernie into scenes from Google Maps Street View.

In the natural cycle of popular internet trends, Bernie in a chair was popping up on various forms of merch by the end of the night. You can now sip coffee out of a mug featuring Bernie and his mittens every morning if you so desire.

The only comment Sen. Sanders has made thus far seems to be an pretty on brand Instagram post. In a short video, he answers a question about his fashion by calling for the Senate to pass $2,000 coronavirus coronavirus relief checks for every adult in America.

No response could’ve encapsulated Bernie’s inauguration day energy more.

New story in Technology from Time: Want to Stop the Next Crisis? Teaching Cyber Citizenship Must Become a National Priority



To be a responsible member of today’s increasingly digital society requires a new set of “cyber citizenship” skills. This goes far beyond the need to protect oneself from on-line scams or the theft of Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Such skills should go to the very heart of what it means to be a U.S. citizen.

The growing challenges of misinformation, deliberate disinformation, conspiracy theories, and false information have not only made the internet a more toxic place, but they have also fueled extremism, poisoned public health and threatened the very basis of our democracy.

The shameful events of January 6, 2021—when a seditious crowd in Washington, DC, driven in part by social media, tried to seize our nation’s seat of government—only underscores the problem.

How do we better equip the next generation of American citizens, so that they won’t suffer our generations’ fate?

Here is what the research shows. When the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently gathered 85 proposals made by 51 different organizations exploring what needed to be done to battle against the online forces of mis- and disinformation that contaminate and poison truth, by far the most frequently recommended policy action was to raise the digital literacy of those who consume that information.

Sometime also described as “media literacy” or “cyber citizenship,” digital literacy is about having the skills to succeed in an increasingly digital world. It is not just about being able to find information online (which is all too easy), but also to be able to analyze and evaluate it for everything from its sourcing to whether someone is trying to manipulate you or not. Or, as a RAND Corporation report on the value of such skills as an essential tool to battling misinformation or “truth decay” summed, it is about “teaching participants how to think without dictating what to think.”

And yet, the vast majority of the policy, media, and civil society have focused on remedies that do not involve this priority. Instead, we keep looking for silver bullets through rewriting the legal codes that govern social media or the software code they use to run their networks. Each approach is certainly worthy of attention.

But the hard reality is that, even if these remedies are fully implemented—unlikely given political and economic realities—they will still be insufficient. Simply put, each neglects the human element of both the attackers, who will adapt their tactics to mitigate such changes, and the targets, the audience whose beliefs and behavior the attackers seek to alter.

The good news is that a wide array of new digital literacy tools have emerged in just the past few years to aid everyone from K-12 students all the way up to the elderly who still want to learn in gaining such skills to handle the online world more effectively. They range from class curricula to entertaining online exercises. As a recent Harvard study explained in its assessment of one such tool (a Dutch educational video game), teaching such “pre-bunking” skills (as opposed to “debunking” fact checks after exposure to the falsehood) can create “significant and meaningful reductions” in the effectiveness of disinformation campaigns.

Think of such skills as a kind of vaccine. They don’t mean the end of the online threat, but they make individuals, and thus our society as a whole, much more resilient against it.

The bad news is that, while many other democracies like Estonia, Finland and Ukraine have built up their citizens’ ability to “learn to discern” online, such efforts are spotty in the U.S.

It is not just that our nation’s leaders and organizations haven’t focused sufficiently on the problem, however. Our challenge is magnified by the fact that the U.S. doesn’t have a single national school system, but literally thousands of them across all the states, counties, and cities.

However, the disarray goes further. Even for those limited numbers of school systems that have launched such programs, the tools that are used to teach digital literacy are too often not validated for their effectiveness. Nor are they gathered together for easy access, nor matched to need or grade level. Some educators have been reduced to literally googling for teaching tools that can aid their efforts to protect their students.

To rectify this urgent need, our two organizations recently launched a novel partnership in Florida to help young people learn how to be responsible ‘cyber citizens’ as they participate in our increasingly digital society. Among other things, we are building a ‘collaborative community’ of national experts in fields ranging from national and cyber security to pedagogy and education policy, along with ‘front line’ educators who are passionate about this topic. Those experts will then help identify and disseminate the best ‘cyber citizenship’ educational tools and strategies and disseminate them to other educators, thus giving them easy access to the best lesson plans, classroom exercises, and other learning materials.

Yet this effort is only the start. We need a sustained national effort if we are to prepare our citizens, both young and otherwise, for ‘life on-line’ in today’s socially engineered world.

Part of the reason for this predicament is that we too often look at online threats through a partisan lens. Yet, those growing up today will have a need for cyber citizenship skills long after the current political debates are past and will need these skills for any topic, not just political ones. Regardless of party, leaders of all U.S. states share a common interest in aiding our youth (and the parents and teachers who care about them).

One of the key tasks of the incoming Biden team will be to convene an array of needed actions to push back against extremism and malign online threats. A crucial part of that is recognizing how domestic and national security policy are now wrapped together in new ways, and thus require more than just traditional legal, intelligence, or military responses. As a result, one positive and arguably bipartisan action item that would both aid teachers, parents and students, as well as build our national resilience against all kinds of future threats, should be for the Department of Education to lead and coordinate a new effort to provide ‘cyber citizenship’ programming in our schools. In turn, Congress should make it a priority to aid the state and local school systems (who are the ones that deliver education in our nation) in scaling such programs, by vetting and sharing best practices and tools, and supporting funds for local implementation.

It is our obligation to train and equip the next generation with the kind of skills that will allow them to avoid repeating the mistakes of our era. And who knows, maybe some of those skills just might rub off on their parents and grandparents too.

Sunday, 17 January 2021

New story in Technology from Time: Twitter Suspends Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Over Election Fraud Claims



Twitter on Sunday temporarily suspended the account of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Republican U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia who has expressed racist views and support for QAnon conspiracy theories online.

Greene’s account was suspended “without explanation,” she said in a statement, while also condemning big tech companies for “silencing” conservative views.

The 46-year-old businesswoman and political newcomer was elected to represent Georgia’s 14th District in November. She’s gained large followings on social media in part by posting incendiary videos and comments and has also embraced QAnon, a far-right U.S. conspiracy theory centered around the debunked belief that President Donald Trump is waging a secret campaign against enemies in the “deep state” and a child sex trafficking ring they say is linked to Democrats.

Before noon Sunday, Greene posted a clip from an interview with a local news outlet in which she condemned Georgia election officials and expressed support for debunked theories claiming that voting machines, absentee ballots and other issues led to widespread fraud in the state during the presidential election.

Twitter responded to the tweet, and others, with a message that called the election fraud claim “disputed,” and saying it posed “a risk of violence.”

A statement from Greene’s team on Sunday included screenshots from Twitter which appeared to show the company informing the congresswoman she had violated its rules and would be prohibited from interacting with content on the site for 12 hours.

Greene urged Congress to “act to protect free speech” in her statement.

The action comes a little more than a week after Twitter banned Trump from the platform, citing “the risk of further incitement of violence” following the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol this month.

As of Jan. 12, Twitter had also suspended more than 70,000 accounts associated with QAnon as it attempted to rein in harmful activity ahead of the presidential inauguration. Twitter has said it is taking action against online behavior “that has the potential to lead to offline harm” after the mob of Trump supporters violently stormed the Capitol building on Jan. 6.

The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Greene’s suspension.

Ad 1