Close

What We Should Do Before the Social Bots Take Over

Link

http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/mit8/papers/Graeff-SocialBotsPrivacy-MIT8.pdf

Award

Won the 2014 Benjamin Siegel Prize in Science, Technology, and Society at MIT

Abstract

Direct interactions between humans and bots generally conjure up images from science fiction of Terminator robots or artificial intelligence gone rogue, like 2001’s HAL or The Matrix. In reality, AI is still far from much of that sophistication, yet we are already faced with the ethical and legal ramifications of bots in our everyday lives. Drones are being used for collecting military intelligence and bombing runs. U.S. states have passed laws to address self-driving cars on public roads. And nearer the subject of this paper, the legality of search engine bots has been openly questioned on grounds of intellectual property protection and trespassing. Bots inspire fear because they represent the loss of control. These fears are in some ways justified, particularly on grounds of privacy invasion. Online privacy protection is already a fraught space, comprising varied and strong positions, and existing laws and regulations that are antiquated many times over by the rapid growth and innovation of the internet in recent decades. The emergence of social bots, as means of entertainment, research, and commercial activity, poses an additional complication to online privacy protection by way of information asymmetry and failures to provide informed consent. In the U.S., the lack of an explicit right to privacy and the federal government’s predilection for laissez faire corporate regulation expose users to a risk of privacy invasion and unfair treatment when they provide personal data to websites and online services, especially those in the form of social bots. This paper argues for legislation that defines a general right to privacy for all U.S. citizens, addressing issues of both access and control of personal information and serving as the foundation for auditable industry design standards that inherently value and honor users’ rights to privacy.

Slides

//www.scribd.com/embeds/163387938/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-2bgbkx2arvndxy7mv916&show_recommendations=true

An Open Letter to Patriotic Microphilanthropists

Originally posted at the MIT Center for Civic Media blog.

We applaud Bill Moyers and Arnold Hiatt’s “Open Letter to Patriotic Philanthropists” in the Winter 2013 Issue of Democracy. It’s an eloquent and timely call to action for “well heeled and well connected” donors to support work that is critical to the future of our nation and our world.

Political reform funding does suffer from an imbalance in resources between lobbyists and activists, caused in part by nearsightedness favoring quantifiable deliverables and risk aversion to innovative projects. However, we feel that we are only looking at one part of the reform movement. Many of the values we care about are as much cultural issues as they are explicitly political or legal issues. We should also be funding efforts to deliver cultural change, and doing so in a way that pushes cultural change itself.

An organization we are both affiliated with, The Awesome Foundation, likes to think of its model in terms of “slow funding,” like the slow food movement standing in opposition to “fast food,” by raising public awareness about, improving access to, and encouraging the enjoyment of funds that are local and sustainably grown.

With this in mind we offer an open letter of our own, a call to action for “Patriotic Microphilanthropists.”

Reading Moyers and Hiatt’s letter we couldn’t help but wonder what a Citizens’ United world means for us less well heeled folks. Is there any way for small dollar donations to have power in American politics when the entire population of San Jose would need to give $100 just to match Sheldon Adelson’s donations in 2012?

Yes, but only if small donors break out their thinking caps along with their credit cards. The changed political landscape requires that we combine the power of people and dollars in new ways. We need to find ways to create impact that is beyond the grasp of big dollars—whether they’re from Arnie Hiatt or Sheldon Adelson. There are an infinite numbers of ways to do this in politics and we are inspired by the incredible community of progressive organizers thinking about and working on solutions.

We think one of the potential best solutions comes from The Awesome Foundation, our own whimsical collection of small-time givers that has little to do with politics. Erhardt is one of the founding trustees of the original Boston chapter, and Sam is a trustee of the NYC chapter. Every month, we go to a bar in our respective cities and meet up with 10 fellow trustees. Each trustee puts in $100 of their own money to create a $1,000 communal pot. Then we read through submitted project ideas and try to reach consensus on which idea is the most “awesome” that month. Shortly thereafter, our chosen project organizer receives the one-time $1,000 grant with no strings attached at a little party in their honor.

The Awesome Foundation may be whimsical but it has an outsized impact. Founded in the summer of 2009, there are now 60+ chapters around the world that have given a total of $375,000+ in grants to 375+ projects. The impact is multiplied by access to local knowledge and projects, a community of supporters that grows every month, and a freedom to fund risky or whacky projects that would scare off traditional funders—all thanks to the power of “It’s Our Money!”

We call on Patriotic Microphilanthropists across America to start “People PACs” in their town. You won’t need any lawyers or money managers or snake oil selling political consultants.

You’ll just need to follow five easy steps:

  1. Gather together with 10 fellow patriots
  2. Ask everyone to put in $100
  3. Give all the money you collect to the politician, organization, or fellow citizen who is doing the most inspiring or creative work in your area to make sure the people get a fair shake
  4. Publicly announce and celebrate the project or individual endorsed by your city’s People PAC—parties encouraged
  5. Repeat every month

Over the past three years, The Awesome Foundation has funded an incredible array of projects from a giant hammock in Boston to youth street theatre in Edmonton to a Temple of Doom recreation in Washington, DC. In New York City, we spun out a new “Awesome Sandy” chapter just to support more of the awesome projects submissions we received related to hurricane relief. If we all work together, People PACs can start jumpstarting people power across the country by buying banners for the next Occupy, campaign signs for the next grassroots politician, and supporting a whole range of inspired people and projects who are otherwise marginalized by the focus on big money political machinery.

We hope that “well connected and well heeled” readers answer Bill and Arnie’s call to “fund the groups that fight for political reform.” But we also hope that the less well heeled readers do not read it as a call to sit back and wait for rich folks to start signing checks.

No! As The Awesome Foundation has proven in the philanthropic world, sustainably pooling small donations can be incredibly powerful. For too long, small donors have been relegated to bit roles in our nation’s political drama. Micah Sifry calls them the “suckers” of American politics “used and abused by campaign operatives who take their money, whisper promises of ‘you own this campaign’ in their thank-you email, and screwed by politicians who realize that these have no way to enforce their desires.” As Patriotic Microphilanthropists, we can never realize our full potential until we seize control of our own future instead of allowing ourselves to be donate-button-clicking zombies for the two major political parties.

It’s time to get money in. The irony would be far too sweet if it was cold hard cash that finally united citizens to fight back in a post-Citizen’s United America.

If you’d like to start a People PAC in your city send an email to peoplepacs@gmail.com.

Sam Novey is an entrepreneur, organizer, and general troublemaker living in New York City. He is a Dean emeritus of the New York City Awesome Foundation

Erhardt Graeff is an entrepreneur and researcher at the MIT Media Lab and MIT Center for Civic Media. He is one of the founding trustees of The Awesome Foundation, and continues to serve as a trustee of the Boston chapter.

 

The Revolutions Were Tweeted

Link

http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1246

Abstract

This article details the networked production and dissemination of news on Twitter during snapshots of the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions as seen through information flows—sets of near-duplicate tweets—across activists, bloggers, journalists, mainstream media outlets, and other engaged participants. We differentiate between these user types and analyze patterns of sourcing and routing information among them. We describe the symbiotic relationship between media outlets and individuals and the distinct roles particular user types appear to play. Using this analysis, we discuss how Twitter plays a key role in amplifying and spreading timely information across the globe.

How many members of Congress have read Profiles in Courage?

Originally published at Unrhetorical.

This is an unfortunately timeless paragraph from John F. Kennedy’s Pulitzer Prize winning Profiles in Courage:

“Today the challenge of political courage looms larger than ever before. For our everyday life is becoming so saturated with the tremendous power of mass communications that any unpopular or unorthodox course arouses a storm of protests such as John Quincy Adams—under attack in 1807—could never have envisioned. Our political life is becoming so expensive, so mechanized and so dominated by professional politicians and public relations men that the idealist who dreams of independent statesmanship is rudely awakened by the necessities of election and accomplishment.” (Introduction)

The very next sentence could be similarly descriptive of the situation immediately following 9/11, i.e. our war with the epithet “on Terror”:

“And our public life is becoming so increasingly centered upon that seemingly unending war to which we have given the curious epithet “cold” that we tend to encourage rigid ideological unity and orthodox patterns of thought.” (Introduction)

Do Different Generational Perspectives on Patriotism and War Line Up?

Originally published at Unrhetorical.

I’m curious about how well Remarque’s perspective in All Quiet on the Western Front resonates with today’s soldiers as they think about the teachers, mentors, and media that encourage us to fight. Seems like a timeless observation:

“While they continued to write and talk, we saw the wounded and dying. While they taught that duty to one’s country is the greatest thing, we already knew that death-throes are stronger. But for all that we were no mutineers, no deserters, no cowards–they were very free with all these expressions. We loved our country as much as they; we went courageously into every action; but also we distinguished the false from true, we had suddenly learned to see. And we saw that there was nothing of their world left. We were all at once terribly alone; and alone we must see it through.” (Chapter 1)

Afghanistan and its Election on Twitter

Link

http://www.webecologyproject.org/2009/09/afghanistan-and-its-election-on-twitter-the-macro-picture/

Summary

  • 111,741 tweets about Afghanistan and its presidential election posted between August 11, 2009 and September 9, 2009
  • 11,255 tweets on August 20, 2009, the day of the election
  • 29,642 users talked about Afghanistan in our dataset
  • Top 10% of tweeters contributed 65% of tweets (same as Iran Election)
  • Number of retweets for a user was not correlated to their tweeting volume (same as Iran Election)
  • 483 hashtags were used at least 3 times
  • No single, dominant hashtag (differs from Iran Election)
  • 3 most used hashtags: #Afghan09, #Afghanistan, and #AfghanElection