Follow the links. Someone is after control of the domain system.
Zukerberg weighs in on how to control communities: appear to give them the Right to Decide. A new take on the war-lord Divide and Conquer. This is from a commentary on Z’s yearly FB manifesto.
New Forms of Governance
Zuckerberg reiterates that the existence of monolithic platforms with access to so many people and their private data creates new governance questions. And that it isn’t right that private companies make “important decisions that touch on fundamental democratic values.” One way to deal with this, he says, is through regulation, especially on issues with elections, harmful content, privacy and data portability.
And then, in the next paragraph, the kicker: “Another and perhaps even better way to address this is by establishing new ways for communities to govern themselves.” This includes an independent oversight board which can hear appeals against Facebook’s content decisions. This “independent board will have the final decision in whether something is allowed.”
On Monday, Bemidji voted 3-2 to not welcome refugees to Beltrami County. Wanna weigh in on that?
Sure. The Power of Advertising. What he’s reckoning is that more dish detergents and Alcoa will flog their wares on FB. Return to innocence. As it was for NBC, so it is for FB.
Another lesson taught in 9th grade Civics: citizens of a democracy act responsibly to defend that democracy. Eg: the draft. There is more than a little tension in this responsibility – eg, the draft – but taking responsibility is not optional.
Mr. Bolton’s statement Monday claims that he is trying to “resolve the serious competing issues” between his obligations as a citizen and a former national security official. In fact, those obligations point in the same direction. Like jury duty or paying taxes, testifying under oath about facts we know is not optional; it is a fundamental obligation of citizenship. As a government official, Mr. Bolton held high office under an oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” Testifying at a Senate impeachment trial fulfills that constitutional oath.
The action is clearer once you’ve taken the oath of office – even though it’s not easier. Eg: the draft, Vietnam:
Unlike Nixon, Mr. Trump has now actually been impeached, for abuse of power and obstructing congressional investigation. If official witnesses don’t testify about these acts, the very subordinates who may have helped Mr. Trump commit them can aid and abet his continuing obstruction. If so, on what conceivable basis can such officials as Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Mulvaney continue to hold high office under an oath to support and defend the Constitution? And recent history only repeats itself if former officials can enrich themselves through memoirs based on what they learned in public office about Mr. Trump’s abuse of a public position for private gain.
Not an everyday need, but worth looking at. The gate could be porous or an iron curtain – your call.
Commenters offered a variety of ideas, which included everything from comment voting to more active moderation. The staff mulled over what they could implement that would be low cost and low impact to its community, and Grut had his own eureka moment while showering before biking to the office: why not a quiz? A WordPress plugin could force users to correctly answer a few multiple-choice questions before the page’s comment field would appear. Once he got to the office, he and fellow staffers spent three hours building the plugin, which Grut reminded the crowd is wholly open source.
Tracking pitched to students – and parents – as Keys to Success. Students aren’t naive: they know admin is tracking them for retention and sales – not security. Tracking via D2L is prevalent, too. They know when you are reading; they know when you are late. On D2L, that creepy prof can see your exchanges with other students – and administrators can see when that creepy prof is checking in and out.
Balan listed off several easily foreseeable scenarios in which relatively untested school-wide surveillance systems put data in the hands of faculty. An evildoer can carry out a man-in-the-middle attack on any network, injecting downloads with malicious code. An impersonation attacker could spoof a Bluetooth identifier. A bad teacher with access to location data could stalk a student; a good teacher with a dumb password could be easily hacked. “Say I’m a teacher, and my password is Whitney123,” Balan postulated. “Arguably, out of ten thousand students, someone is going to try that password.”
If school surveillance looks anything like school security, he says, a “password123” blunder ranks high on the list of probabilities; Balan calls the present state of security tech in public spaces like hospitals and university campuses “a disaster.” “The software and operating systems are outdated, and passwords are leaked,” he said. “Surveillance cameras are on the same network as other computers, and the access to that network would be the word ‘password.’ And by no means was this an isolated case.”
It’s an opportunity for guerrilla theatre. How about hacking a classroom to show all students present all the time. How about sitting down at all entrances to an admin building – blocking them in or out. How about spamming the D2L message system with Wham! lyrics.
Vick countered with an offer to students:
If you are at one of these schools asking you to install apps on your phone to track you, hit me up for some totally hypothetical academic ideas on how one might dismantle such a system.
We’re always up for hacker class, so Vick supplied Gizmodo with a few theories for inquiring minds.
Making semiotic sense of an annoying stylistic tic: So says more than you might want it to.
This is apparently is an example of semantic bleaching, similar to the process that turned very and really (and more recently literally) into intensifiers. The OED lists so as an “adv. and conj.” glossed as “In the way or manner described, indicated, or suggested; in that style or fashion”, with examples going back to the 9th century. Over the centuries, if the bleaching theory is correct, a sense emerged that’s something more like “in relation to the issue described, suggested, or presupposed”.
“So” also seems to indicate a connection between the interviewer and interviewed, a suggestion that the answer really is going to address the question. But often, the interviewed answers a different question, snd the particle becomes a rhetorical backhander. Compare it to using “Well …” in the same context. “So” indicates that the response is canned, being delivered by rote – which also appears in the general tone of voice and cadence. “Well” can suggest the response is more thoughtful and tailored for the context.
Arguments get buried. They need to be brought to light.
Trump, Republican politicians insisted, embodies everyone who once voted for him, while the Democratic House majority – installed just one year ago in an election with record turnout – stood for no one, or at best for a disembodied elite, or politically irrelevant classes who live in parts of the country that somehow don’t count.
The anxiety of the Republican position was palpable during the impeachment investigation in their efforts to present their minority case as the majority case, and in their strenuous sales pitch of untouchable executive power as a form of populism.