February 2012 - Air-L - lists.aoir.org

Autocomplete research
by Jasmine E McNealy 03 Apr '13

03 Apr '13

Hello All, I was wondering if anyone could suggests journal articles or other readings on "autocomplete" particularly with respect to the big search engines like Google and Yahoo! (and I guess Bing now). Thank you in advance for you assistance. Best, JM ________________________________ Jasmine McNealy, J.D., Ph.D. Assistant Professor S.I. Newhouse of Public Communication Syracuse University 215 University Place Room 377 NH2 Syracuse, NY 13244 315-443-1151 jemcneal(a)syr.edu

4 4

Inclusion of short links in academic publications?
by yana breindl 21 Aug '12

21 Aug '12

Thank you all for your comments! The reason I asked is not because of a word limit but because one of my committee members suggested I'd use short links to ease access for readers of the print dissertation. I do have quite a lot of electronic sources as footnotes in some of the chapters and he mentioned he'd have typed a shortened url but not a long one. An alternative would be to include short urls in the footnotes and add an appendix with corresponding long links. I'm not sure it's worth the hassle though. On 22 July 2011 16:39, Sharon Haleva Amir <sharon(a)trebcon.com> wrote: > > Yana, the only advantage I can think of regarding the usage of shortened > URL > is if you're writing an article and there is a words' limitation (as long > as > the limitation refers to the bibliography/footnotes as well as the article > itself), as sometimes the URLs can be quite long. > > I think that the need to shorten texts (for twitting etc.) was the basic > rational for establishing such services. > > > Best Wishes, > Sharon Haleva Amir, HCLT Fellow > (PhD Candidate) Faculty of Law, > University of Haifa, ISRAEL. > -------------------------------------------------- > http://www.coolcite.com/user/1694 > http://weblaw.haifa.ac.il/en/research/resstudents/pages/sharonha.aspx > > -----Original Message----- > From: air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org > [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of yana breindl > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 11:27 AM > To: Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org > Subject: [Air-L] Inclusion of short links in academic publications? > > Hello all, > > I was wondering what your thoughts were concerning the use of shortened > URLs > (e.g. tinyURL, bit.ly etc.) to reference electronic sources in a > dissertation or other academic publication (along with the title, date, > etc. > possibly an annexe with the long URL). Has this been done already? Is it > acceptable? Are there important differences between various shortening > sites? > > Thank you, > > Yana > > > --------------------- > Yana BREINDL > > Ph.D Candidate > Dépt des sciences de l'information et de la communication (SIC) > Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) > > Tél.: + 32 (0)2 650 44 46 > E-mail: ybreindl(a)ulb.ac.be > _______________________________________________ > The Air-L(a)listserv.aoir.org mailing list > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org > > Join the Association of Internet Researchers: > http://www.aoir.org/ > > -- Yana BREINDL Doctorante Dépt des sciences de l'information et de la communication (SIC) Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) Tél.: + 32 (0)2 650 44 46 E-mail: ybreindl(a)ulb.ac.be -- Yana BREINDL Doctorante Dépt des sciences de l'information et de la communication (SIC) Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) Tél.: + 32 (0)2 650 44 46 E-mail: ybreindl(a)ulb.ac.be

5 6

CFP: Emerging Methods for Digital Media Research
by Jean Burgess 26 Mar '12

26 Mar '12

Dear colleagues, If you work in a related area, I hope you'll consider submitting something to this special issue of the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media that Axel Bruns, Larissa Hjorth and I are editing. Tweetable link: http://www.mappingonlinepublics.net/2012/01/30/call-for-papers-emerging-met hods-for-digital-media-research/ Best regards Jean ---------- Emerging Methods for Digital Media Research Special Themed Issue of the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (JOBEM), March 2013. Guest Editors: Jean Burgess (QUT) Axel Bruns (QUT) Larissa Hjorth (RMIT) ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries & Innovation (http://cci.edu.au/) Editor: Zizi Papacharissi With the rise of Œbig data¹, locative media, and smartphones, existing media and communication studies methods are being recombined, reconfigured and replaced alongside their objects of study. This special issue of JOBEM seeks to expose new research methods for understanding the changing nature of the content industries, the impact of digital media on the practices of creative workers, and the experiences and practices of everyday users of digital media technologies. We welcome papers based in the humanities and social sciences that reflect on, discuss or critique current methodological trends in digital media research, shedding light on the following questions: 1. Where are the emerging methodological gaps - are there pressing research problems that require the development of new methods, techniques and tools? 2. Where are there needs for new combinations of methods, within or across disciplines? 3. What are the implications for future pedagogical models in internet, media and communication studies, including doctoral education and other forms of research training? We especially welcome papers grounded in the experience of conducting empirical digital media research. However we will give preference to papers that contextualise, historicise, and reflect on current methodological trends; rather than simply report on the applications or results of new methods. Abstracts of 250 words are due by 31 March, 2012. Depending on the number of abstracts received, we may shortlist submissions at this stage. Please email your abstract and a list of 3 or 4 suggested peer reviewers to: jobem.edm(a)gmail.com. Full articles of no more than 7000 words should be submitted on or before 1 August, 2012 at: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hbem (select ³Special Issue: Emerging Digital Methods² as a manuscript type). Manuscripts should conform to the guidelines of the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=0883-8151&linktype=44 <http://www.beaweb.org/jobem.htm>). -- -- -- Dr Jean Burgess Deputy Director, ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries & Innovation http://cci.edu.au <http://cci.edu.au/> Creative Industries Faculty Queensland University of Technology http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au <http://creativeindustries.qut.edu.au/> Phone: +61 3138 8253 Twitter: @jeanburgess http://twitter.com/jeanburgess Personal blog: http://creativitymachine.net <http://creativitymachine.net/> Mapping Online Publics project website: http://mappingonlinepublics.net <http://mappingonlinepublics.net/> Digital Storytelling at QUT http://digitalstorytelling.ci.qut.edu.au <http://digitalstorytelling.ci.qut.edu.au/>

1 1

DEADLINE EXTENDED: IIPC Doctoral Support Award Feb 29
by Potter, Abigail 14 Mar '12

14 Mar '12

The new deadline for applications is Feb 29, 2012. University of North Texas Interdisciplinary Information Science PhD Program * Award Announcement: April 1, 2012 * Ph.D. Program Start Date: Fall 2012 * Duration of Funding: 3 years (assuming successful progress) * Annual Financial Support: Approximately $40,000 (USD) http://infosciencephd.unt.edu/iipc-web-archiving-doctoral-support-award Abigail Potter Communications Officer, IIPC Program Officer, NDIIPP Library of Congress abpo(a)loc.gov ph. +202-707-7371 101 Independence Ave. S.E. Washington, DC 20540-1310

6 6

CC-licensed version of book
by Julie Cohen 12 Mar '12

12 Mar '12

With a shout-out to Yale Press for their commitment to open access, I'm delighted to announce that the Creative Commons licensed version of my book is now available at www.juliecohen.com. All best, Julie Julie E. Cohen Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center jec(a)law.georgetown.edu http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/jec/

3 2

Internet Research 13.0: Technologies: submission open
by Attwood, Feona 01 Mar '12

01 Mar '12

Internet Research 13.0: Technologies The 13th Annual International and Interdisciplinary Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) October 18-21, 2012 MediaCity:UK - University of Salford Salford - Greater Manchester - UK http://ir13.aoir.org Submission here: https://www.conftool.com/aoir-ir13/ Internet Research 13.0 will focus on the theme of technologies, understood in the broadest sense as crafts, techniques, and systems. The conference will examine the place of the Internet in the contemporary world and in relation to a range of existing and emerging technologies, considering its impact in a context where life is entangled with technologies of all kinds as never before. The conference will bring together scholars, researchers, students and practitioners from many disciplines to map and situate the development of the Internet as part of the history of human technology. To this end, we call for papers, panel and pre-conference workshop proposals from any discipline, methodology, community or a combination of them that address the conference themes, including, but not limited to, papers that intersect and/or interconnect with the following: * the speed and acceleration of technological change * the past, present and future of technology * emerging and converging technologies * educational technology * cultures of crafting * connectivity and access * space, location and mobile technologies * technology, networks and attachments * technology and the body * technologies of the self * technology, regulation and ethics Sessions at the conference will be established that specifically address the conference themes, and we welcome innovative, exciting, and unexpected takes on those themes. We also welcome submissions on topics that address social, cultural, political, legal, aesthetic, economic, and/or philosophical aspects of the internet beyond the conference themes. In all cases, we welcome disciplinary and interdisciplinary submissions as well as international collaborations from both AoIR and non-AoIR members. SUBMISSIONS We seek proposals for several different kinds of contributions. As in the past, we welcome proposals for traditional academic conference PAPERS, organized PANEL PROPOSALS that present a coherent group of papers on a single theme, as well as PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS which focus on a particular topic. We also invite proposals that will focus on discussion and interaction among conference delegates. A common form of this type is the ROUNDTABLE SESSION, but we would also like to encourage other formats, such as OPEN FISHBOWL SESSIONS. (See the Wikipedia entry under “Fishbowl (conversation)” for a description of this format. Fishbowl sessions should cover broad topics of interest to a wide segment of the AoIR community.) Finally, we invite short 5-minute talks on topics of interest to the community as part of our Ignite-IR panels. Please see below for more information on this format. DEADLINES Submissions Due: 1 March 2012 (Papers, Panels and Pre-Workshops. Details below.) NOTE: The submission deadline is a HARD DEADLINE; there will be NO extensions to this date. Notification: 1 May 2012 Full Papers Submissions Due for inclusion in Selected Papers of IR: 1 July 2012 Ignite-IR Final Proposal Deadline: 1 August 2012 Ignite-IR Slides Due: 15 September 2012 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS All papers and presentations will be evaluated in a standard blind peer review. PAPERS (individual or multi-author) – submit abstract of 600-800 words PANEL PROPOSALS – submit a description of 600-800 words on the panel theme, plus a 250-500 word abstract for each paper or presentation. The panel organizer must assemble these materials for submission ROUNDTABLE and FISHBOWL PROPOSALS – submit a statement indicating the nature of the discussion and form of interaction, and listing initial participants. (In the case of a fishbowl proposal, this will include the name of the moderator, and the names of the first four speakers for the fishbowl.) PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS – please submit all workshop proposals via email to attwood(a)aoir.org<mailto:attwood@aoir.org>. Workshop proposals should include names of presenters and a 1,000-word description. IGNITE-IR – please submit a one-paragraph abstract and other information. Details at http://ir13.aoir.org/ignite-ir Papers, presentations and panels will be selected from the submitted proposals on the basis of multiple blind peer review, coordinated and overseen by the Program Chair. Each individual may present only one paper during the conference, though they may be listed as a co-author on multiple papers. In addition to this one presentation, they may also appear on a panel, roundtable, or performance. The exception is the Ignite-IR lightening talk, which may be in addition to any other presentations. PUBLICATION OF PAPERS Full papers submitted by the 1 July 2012 deadline will undergo review to be published in an open-access, online collection, Selected Papers of Internet Research (ISSN 2162-3317). A template and guidelines for preparing your final paper are available on the conference website (http://ir13.aoir.org/papers) Selected papers from the conference will alternatively be published in a special issue of the journal Information, Communication & Society. Authors selected for submission for this issue will be contacted prior to the conference. PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS On 18 October 2012, there will be a limited number of pre-conference workshops and symposia that will provide participants with in-depth, hands-on and/or creative opportunities. We invite proposals for these pre-conference workshops. Local presenters are encouraged to propose workshops that will invite visiting researchers into their labs or studios or locales. Proposals should be no more than 1,000 words, and should clearly outline the purpose, methodology, structure, costs, equipment and minimal attendance required, as well as explaining its relevance to the conference as a whole. Proposals will be accepted if they demonstrate that the workshop will add significantly to the overall program in terms of thematic depth, hands on experience, or local opportunities for scholarly or artistic connections. These proposals and all inquiries regarding pre-conference proposals should be submitted as soon as possible to the program chair (attwood(a)aoir.org<mailto:attwood@aoir.org>) and no later than 1 March 2012. IGNITE-IR For the second year, the Internet Research conference will offer the opportunity to present short, five minute talks in rapid succession. Presenters provide a deck of twenty slides, which will auto-advance each fifteen seconds. Details on the session maybe found at the conference website. Because talks are intended to be of the moment, the submission deadline is much later than for papers: 1 August 2012. CONTACT INFORMATION Program Chair: Feona Attwood, Communication, Sheffield Hallam University, UK, email attwood(a)aoir.org<mailto:attwood@aoir.org> Local Conference Chair: Ben Light, School of Media, Music, and Performance, University of Salford, email: light(a)aoir.org<mailto:light@aoir.org>

4 4

Blogpost about Google’s “New“ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy: Old Exploitation and User Commodification in a New Ideological Skin
by Christian Fuchs 29 Feb '12

29 Feb '12

http://fuchs.uti.at/789/ Google’s “New“ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy: Old Exploitation and Commodification in a New Ideological Skin On March 1st, 2012, Google changed its terms of use and privacy policy. What has changed? Has something changed? Google’s general terms of services that were valid from April 16, 2007, until the end of February 2012, applied to all of its services. It thereby enabled the economic surveillance of a diverse multitude of user data that was collected from various services and user activities for the purpose of targeted advertising: “Some of the Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the Services, queries made through the Services or other information”. Google specified in its old privacy policy (valid from October 20, 2011, until the end of February 2012) that the company “may collect the following types of information”: personal registration information, cookies that store “user preferences”, log information (requests, interactions with a service, IP address, browser type, browser language, date and time of requests, cookies that uniquely identify a user), user communications, location data, unique application number. Google said that it was using Cookies for “improving search results and ad selection”, which is only a euphemism for saying that Google sells user data for advertising purposes. “Google also uses cookies in its advertising services to help advertisers and publishers serve and manage ads across the web and on Google services”. To “serve and manage ads” means to exploit user data for economic purposes. The Google ad preferences manager displays the user interests and preferences that are collected by the use of cookies and used for targeted advertising. Google’s old privacy policy specified that “Google uses the DoubleClick advertising cookie on AdSense partner sites and certain Google services to help advertisers and publishers serve and manage ads across the web”. Google used DoubleClick, a commercial advertising server owned by Google since 2007 that collects and networks data about usage behaviour on various websites, sells this data, and helps providing targeted advertising – for networking the data it holds about its users with data about these users’ browsing and usage behaviour on other web platforms. There was only an opt-out option from this form of networked economic surveillance. Google’s privacy policy provided a link to this option. Opt-out options are always rather unlikely to be used because in many cases they are hidden inside of long privacy and usage terms and are therefore only really accessible to knowledgeable users. Many Internet corporations avoid opt-in advertising solutions because such mechanisms can drastically reduce the potential number of users participating in advertising. That Google helped advertisers to “serve and manage ads across the web” means that it used the DoubleClick server for collecting user behaviour data from all over the WWW and using this data for targeted advertising. Google’s exploitation of users is not only limited to its own sites, its surveillance process is networked, spreads and tries to reach all over the WWW. The analysis shows that Google makes use of privacy policies and terms of service that enable the large-scale economic surveillance of users for the purpose of capital accumulation. Advertising clients of Google that use Google AdWords are able to target ads for example by country, exact location of users and distance from a certain location, language users speak, the type of device used: (desktop/laptop computer, mobile device (specifiable)), the mobile phone operator used (specifiable), gender, or age group. On January 25, 2012, the EU released a proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation that defines a right of individuals not to be subject to profiling, which is understood as “automated processing intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to this natural person or to analyse or predict in particular the natural person’s performance at work, economic situation, location, health, personal preferences, reliability or behaviour“ (article 20, 1). Targeted advertising is such a form of profiling. According to (the planned) article 20, 2 (c), profiling is allowed if the data subject consents according to the conditions of article 7, which says that if the consent is given as part of a written declaration (as e.g. a web site’s terms of use or privacy policy), the “consent must be presented distinguishable in its appearance from this other matter“ (article 7, 2). The regulation furthermore proposes a right of citizens to be forgotten (article 17), which also includes that third parties should be informed and asked to erase the same data (article 17, 2), the right to data portability (article 18), which e.g. means that all personal data must be exportable from Facebook to other social networking sites. A further suggested regulation is that by default only the minimum of data that is necessary for obtaining the purpose of processing is collected and stored (article 23). Fines of up to 1 000 000 Euros and 2% of the annual worldwide turnover of a company are implemented (article 79). The EU regulation to a certain extent limits targeted advertising by the right to be forgotten and the special form in which consensus must be given, it does however not make targeted advertising a pure opt-in option, which were a more efficient way for protecting consumers’ and users’ privacy. As a result of the announcement of the EU Data Protection Regulation, Google over night announced the change and unification of all its privacy policies and the change of its terms of use. In the new terms of use, the use of targeted advertising is no longer defined in the terms of use, but the privacy policy: “We use the information we collect from all of our services to provide, maintain, protect and improve them, to develop new ones, and to protect Google and our users. We also use this information to offer you tailored content – like giving you more relevant search results and ads”. Although Google presents its new policies as major privacy enhancement (“a simpler, more intuitive Google experience. […] we’re consolidating more than 60 into our main Privacy Policy. Regulators globally have been calling for shorter, simpler privacy policies – and having one policy covering many different products is now fairly standard across the web” (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-privacy-policies-and-te…) The core of the regulations – the automatic use of targeted advertising – has not changed. The European Union does not require Google to base targeted ads on opt-in. Google offers two opt-out options for targeted ads: one can opt-out from the basing of targeted ads on a) search keywords and b) visited websites that have Google ads (Ads Preferences Manager, https://www.google.com/settings/ads/preferences/) In the new privacy policy, “user communications” are no longer mentioned separately as collected user information. But rather content is defined as part of log information: “Log information. When you use our services or view content provided by Google, we may automatically collect and store certain information in server logs. This may include: details of how you used our service, such as your search queries”. Search keywords can be interpreted as the content of a Google search. The formulation that log information is how one uses a service is vague. It can be interpreted to also include all type of Google content, such as the text of a gMail message or a Google+ posting. In the new privacy policy, Google says: “We may combine personal information from one service with information, including personal information, from other Google services – for example to make it easier to share things with people you know. We will not combine DoubleClick cookie information with personally identifiable information unless we have your opt-in consent”. This change is significant and reflects the circumstance of the EU data protection regulation’s third-party regulation in the right to be forgotten (article 17, 2). The question if DoubleClick is used for Google’s targeted ads more or less is based on the question how extensively and aggressively Google tries to make users to opt-in to DoubleClick. The effect is that Google will no longer be able to automatically use general Internet user data collected by DoubleClick. However, the unification of the privacy policies and the provision that information from all Google services and all Google ads on external sites can be combined allows Google to base targeted advertising on user profiles that contain a broad range of user data. The sources of user surveillance are now mainly Google services. As Google spreads its ad service all over the web, this surveillance is still networked and spread out. Google tries to compensate the limited use of DoubleClick data for targeted advertising with an integration of the data that it collects itself. Concerning the use of sensitive data, both the old and the new privacy policy specify: “We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information”. In addition, the new policy says: “When showing you tailored ads, we will not associate a cookie or anonymous identifier with sensitive categories, such as those based on race, religion, sexual orientation or health”. Targeted ads use data from all Google services, including content data”. The proposed EU Data Protection Regulation says that the processing of sensitive data (race, ethnicity, political opinions, religion, beliefs, trade-union membership, genetic data, health data, sex life, criminal convictions or related security measures) is forbidden, except if the data subject consents (article 9). Google continues to use content data (such as search queries) for targeting advertising that is based on algorithms that make an automatic classification of interests. By collecting a large number of search keywords by one individual, the likelihood that he or she can be personally identified increases. Search keywords are furthermore linked to IP addresses that make the computers of users identifiable. Algorithms can never perfectly analyze the semantics of data. Therefore use of sensitive data for targeted advertising cannot be avoided as long as search queries and other content are automatically analyzed. Google’s provision that it does not use sensitive data for targeted ads stands in contradiction with the fact that it says it uses “details of how you used our service, such as your search queries”. The overall changes introduced by Google’s new privacy policies and terms of use are modest, the fundamentals remains unchanged: Google uses targeted advertising as a default. DoubleClick is now less likely to be used for targeted advertising. Google has unified its privacy policies. Whereas Google presents this move as providing more transparency (“We believe this new, simpler policy will make it easier for people to understand our privacy practices as well as enable Google to improve the services we offer”, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/updating-our-privacy-policies-and-te…) it also enables Google to base its targeted ads on a wide range of user data that stem from across all its services. Google claims that it does not use sensitive data for targeted ads, which is contradicted by the definition of content data as log data that can be used for targeted ads. Google’s old privacy terms (version from October 20, 2011) had 10 917 characters, which is an increase of 30%. The main privacy terms have thereby grown in complexity, although the number of privacy policies that apply to Google services was reduced from more than 70 to one. Google present its updated terms of use and privacy policies as new, although no fundamental improvements of user privacy protection can be found. The “change” is an ideological marketing strategy aimed at maintaining the stability of the exploitation of the labour of users that generates value and generates Google’s profits that in 2011 amounted to $8.5 billion (http://www.forbes.com/global2000/#p_1_s_arank_ComputerServices_All_All) Google continues to automatically collect, analyse and commodify a multitude of user data that is generated by searches and the use of Google services. The Marxist communication scholar Dallas Smythe wrote in 1981: “For the great majority of the population […] 24 hours a day is work time. […] [Audiences] work to market […] things to themselves”. For the great majority of Internet users, most of Internet use is (value-generating) labour time. Internet users work on Google and other corporate platforms to market things to themselves and are transformed into an Internet commodity that is sold to targeted advertising clients in order to accumulate capital in the amount of billions of Euros. In a response letter to the EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (concerning Google’s updated policies and terms; see http://www.edri.org/book/export/html/1225) Google’s Global Privacy Counsel Peter Fleischer writes that “we are not selling our users’ data”. One wonders where Google’s $US 8.5 billion profits come from, except from the commodification of the data results of users’ activities? The EU Article 29 Data Protection Working Party asked the French National Commission for Computing and Civil Liberties (CNIL) to analyse Google’s new policies. In a letter to Google, CNIL shows deep concern and said that “our preliminary analysis shows that Google’s new policy does not meet the requirements of the European Directive on Data Protection […] Moreover, rather than promoting transparency, the terms of the new policy and the fact that Google claims publicly that it will combine data across services raises fears about Google’s actual practices. Our preliminary investigation shows that it is extremely difficult to know exactly which data is combined between which services for which purposes, even for trained privacy professionals. In addition, Google is using cookies (among other tools) for these combinations and in this regard, it is not clear how Google aims to comply with the principle of consent laid down in Article 5(3) of the revised ePrivacy Directive, when applicable. The CNIL and the EU data protection authorities are deeply concerned about the combination of personal data across services: they have strong doubts about the lawfulness and fairness of such processing, and about its compliance with European Data Protection legislation”. Big Brother Watch reports that only 12% of the Google users have read the new policy and that 65% are not aware that the changes have now come into effect. The initiative says: “Google is putting advertiser’s interests before user privacy and should not be rushing ahead before the public understand what the changes will mean”. According to the proposed new EU Data Protection Regulation (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/120125_en.htm) Google’s exploitation of users is perfectly legal. That it is legal does however not mean that we cannot consider Google commodification as a violation of user/consumer/Internet workers’ privacy, but rather that the EU’s suggested legal provisions do not provide enough protection for users. The only way forward is to legally require all Internet companies (and companies in general) to necessarily make targeted advertising an opt-in option by law, which would give users and consumers more control. Implementing such a provision requires not only courage, it also requires not to be afraid of organised business interests. It is however the only way for putting privacy interests first. Today, profit stands over privacy protection and therefore over people. Google is one of the best examples for this circumstance. Google’s “new” privacy policy is not new at all and should consequently best be renamed to “privacy violation policy” or “user exploitation policy”. Related publication: Fuchs, Christian. 2011. A contribution to the critique of the political economy of Google. Fast Capitalism 8 (1). http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/8_1/fuchs8_1.html

1 0

CFP: Sketching in Design - Workshop at DIS - Deadline March 23
by Eric P. S. Baumer 29 Feb '12

29 Feb '12

--apologies for cross-posting-- Adoption, Adaptation, Appropriation: Sketching as a Case Study in the Blurring Lines between Design, Research, and Practice Workshop at DIS 2012 Do you sketch? Are you prone to doodling? Do you find yourself drawing on napkins? While much work has discussed the important role that sketching plays in design, less has been done to explore how design methods are working their way into other disciplines. We are seeking people who use sketching—for developing greater understanding, for conveying ideas as they are being formed, for communicating fully formed ideas, or for other reasons—to participate in a workshop to better understand the varied roles of sketching in design, research, and practice. Participants from all fields, with any skill level or experience in sketching, are welcome and encouraged. We are interested in how design methods are being adopted, adapted, and appropriated in various disciplines, using sketching as a concrete example and focal starting point. This workshop will therefore assemble a diverse group of participants to explore the methodological, epistemological, and practical issues, such as the tension between artifact production and knowledge production, that can arise in such work. The workshop will involve presentations and discussions on the evolution and incorporation of design methods in a variety of disciplines, as well as hands-on sketching activities that will give participants the opportunity to try out a variety of sketching methods. This workshop seeks to document some of the myriad ways in which design methods, including but not limited to sketching, are being combined with approaches from other disciplines. Participants will also be encouraged to engage in a reflective dialogue examining the ramifications of these methodological crossovers and hybrids, both on the individuals involved and on their respective fields. Potential attendees should submit a sketch and a statement. The sketch should come from their own work, though it need not be a sketch they have made, simply one they use. The sketch can take any form and is not limited to freehand drawings. The statement, up to 2 pages in DIS conference format, should describe the role that sketching plays in their work, using the submitted sketch as an example. Strong statements will reflect on the methodological issues in, and the implications of, using sketching in the author’s own field of work. Submissions may be sent via email to the organizers (ericpsb and mkh46, both at cornell.edu) Submission Deadline: March 23, 2012 Notification: April 6, 2012 Workshop Date: June 11, 2012 http://www.meganhalpern.com/sketchingworkshop/ Organizers: Eric P. S. Baumer, Communication and Information Science, Cornell University Megan Halpern, Communication, Cornell University

1 0

Sharing the recommendations i got for philosophical perspectives on digital culture
by Carmel Vaisman 29 Feb '12

29 Feb '12

Hi all, I've been asked to share the list I compiled from the recommendations I got for readings on philosophic aspect of digital culture. Two disclaimers: it includes some of the more popular lit too and it's quite cut & pasted, not fully "digested" yet, so I apologize. Here it is: Alexander Galloway / Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture, Protocol Andrew Feenberg's critical theory of technology, especially as developed extensively in conjunction with empirical work on CMC by Maria Bakardjieva - e.g., her forthcoming "Web 2.0 Technologies of the Self," co-authored with Georgia Gaden. ("Online first" - DOI: 10.1007/s13347-011-0032-9) Angela Daly, a paper under review on Anarchism and the Internet, which critiques Yochai Benkler's assertions/predictions in 'Wealth of Networks'. Operations Object-oriented Ontology lit (Ian Bogost / Unit, as starting point) Fuchs Christian "Internet and society" and "Foundations of critical media and inforamtion studies" are based on social theory and philosohy, namely critical theory and Hegel's philosophy. Ray Kurzweil on transhumanism. Start with The Singularity is Near / The Age of Spiritual Machines (*p.s: I am actually looking for an interesting humanistic critic on singularity if anyone can help that'll be great) * Glyn Moody - Rebel Code: Linux and the Open Source Revolution and also Mark Pesce - http://thenextbillionseconds.com/2012/01/10/initiation/ Cory Doctorow, both his fiction and non fiction writings, perhaps especially for your purposes his book Little Brother. Charles Stross especially his book Halting State. His story Lobsters is just crazy out there, but amazing. Elizabeth Buchanan and Annette Markham on the "Ethical Guidelines 2.0" document for AoIR. Ess, C. and Thorseth, M. 2011. Introduction, in C. Ess and M. Thorseth (eds.), _Trust and Virtual Worlds: Contemporary Perspectives_, pp. vii-xxiv. New York: Peter Lang. Ess, C. And Cheong, P. 2012. Introduction: Religion 2.0? Relational and Hybridizing Pathways in Religion, Social Media, and Culture. In P. Cheong, P. Fischer-Nielsen, S. Gelfgren, and C. Ess (eds.), _Digital Religion, Social Media and Culture: Perspectives, Practices and Futures_, pp. 1-21. New York: Peter Lang. Ess, C. - Introduction to a forthcoming issue of Philosophy and Technology on "Personal Identity Online" Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology_ a review of Charles ESS on the book (Charles, do share it…) Turoff, Murray, Virtuality, CACM, Volume 40, Number 9, September 1997, pp. 38-43. * * <http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393072223> *The Shallows*<http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393072223>by Nick Carr, *The Information<http://www.amazon.com/Information-History-Theory-Flood/dp/0375423729/> * by James Gleick, and *You Are Not a Gadget<http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Not-Gadget-Manifesto/dp/0307389979/> * by Jaron Lanier Jenkins's syllabus for "science fiction as media theory": http://henryjenkins.org/2011/08/back_to_school_special_syllabu.html Diane Dubrule's syllabus on computer ethics: http://www4.carleton.ca/calendars/ugrad/current/courses/PHIL/2104.html <http://www4.carleton.ca/calendars/ugrad/current/courses/PHIL/2104.html> Deborah G. Johnson, Computer Ethics. Prentice Hall. Peter Ludlow (ed.). High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues in Cyberspace. MIT Press. Vallor, S. (2009). Social Networking Technology and the Virtues. Ethics and Information Technology. Volume 12, Number 2 <http://www.springerlink.com/content/1388-1957/12/2/>, 157-170, DOI: 10.1007/s10676-009-9202-1 Vallor, S. 2011. Flourishing on facebook: virtue friendship & new social media. Ethics and Information Technology. Doi: 10.1007/s10676-010-9262-2. Zizek: "Cyberspace, Or, The Unbearable Closure of Being" from chapter 4 of _The Plague of Fantasies_and his analysis of MIT's SixthSense in _Living in the End Times_ Facebook and Philosophy: What¹s On Your Mind?, ? D.E. Wittkower (ed.). Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Press, 2010. Thanks, Carmel

3 2

"Does Nonprofit Electronic Advocacy Work?"
by Deborah Elizabeth Finn 29 Feb '12

29 Feb '12

Dear Colleagues, Community TechKnowledge has just launched its new guest blog, and I'd like to invite you to peruse it: <http://www.communitytech.net/news-category/guest-bloggers> I thought that you might be especially interested in the premiere guest blogger's article: "Does Nonprofit Electronic Advocacy Work?" John G. McNutt Professor School of Public Policy & Administration University of Delaware <http://www.communitytech.net/news/does-nonprofit-electronic-advocacy-work> As the curator of this new blog (and a consultant to Community TechKnowledge), I'd like to encourage you not only to read these articles but to post comments to the blog in response to them. Best regards from Deborah Deborah Elizabeth Finn Strategist and Consultant Technology for the Nonprofit and Philanthropic Sector Boston, Massachusetts, USA Email: deborah.elizabeth(a)finn.com Blog: www.deborahelizabethfinn.com Skype: Deborah909 Twitter: Deborah909 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/deborah909 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Deborah.Elizabeth.Finn Voicemail: 1-617-958-1959 I bring resources and needs together for nonprofits and philanthropies, mostly through strategic use of information and communication technologies.

1 0