- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

[cfp] papers for Histories of Computing in Asia workshop now being accepted
by Christopher Leslie 10 Feb '24

10 Feb '24

Dear Colleagues, I hope you’ll consider submitting a paper for the Histories of Computing in Asia workshop, which will be held in Phuket, Thailand, in September 2024. We welcome historical accounts, first-hand narratives, historiographies, pedagogical papers, and papers about relevant museum or archival holdings. More information is available in our full CFP: https://ifipwg97.org/workshops/hca2024/ As can be seen from our full CFP, IFIP Working Group 9.7 is interested in broadening the history of computing with an understanding of international cooperation and developments in Asian countries. Asia offers many exemplary stories about the importance of international connectedness in computing. Many computing professionals hail from this region, to be sure, but also some early developments like Korea’s Cyworld presaged international phenomena. As always, adapting technology to local conditions results in innovation and local histories provide important caveats to universal histories. Some of this information has been published in languages other than English, so our workshop will also help to build a bridge between the English-speaking community with research in other languages. Our typical practice is to publish post-workshop proceedings. We will review conference papers (2,500 to 5,000 words) until 1 April 2024. Acceptances along with reviewer comments will be announced on 1 May 2024. We will circulate draft papers in advance of the workshop with the aim of fostering a lively discussion at the workshop, which will be held at Dusit Thani Laguna in Phuket. Authors can then revise their papers based on comments at the workshop for consideration in the proceedings volume, which will be published by Springer. Working Group 9.7 has organized more than a dozen workshops that highlight the international nature of the history of computing, particularly with our Springer volumes on Nordic countries, Soviet and Russian computing, and eastern Europe. Even though the workshop language is English, most of our participants do not speak English as a first language; we are committed to international exchange, so we encourage all researchers to participate. Draft papers are now being accepted. Sometime before April 1, please submit your work via Springer's EquinOCS service: https://equinocs.springernature.com/service/HC2024 Would you be so kind as to forward this announcement along your networks and inform your colleagues and students who might potentially be interested? If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Chris Leslie --- Dr. Christopher Leslie (he/him) Author of From Hyperspace to Hypertext: Masculinity, Globalization, and Their Discontents (Palgrave 2023) https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-99-2027-3 Blog: chrisleslie.info Chair, IFIP Working Group 9.7: History of Technology Lecturer, Faculty of Liberal Arts Prince of Songkla University Hat Yai, Thailand

1 0

Call for abstracts --> "Digital Work Futures: Adopting and Adapting to AI-Infused Platforms in the Digital and Creative Industries" (4S/EASST, Amsterdam)
by Martin Berg 09 Feb '24

09 Feb '24

Dear colleagues, Join us for exciting discussions about the future of work at the 4S/EASST conference in Amsterdam this summer. The deadline for abstract submission is approaching quickly (Monday, February 12). I'm organising and chairing the panel "Digital Work Futures: Adopting and Adapting to AI-Infused Platforms in the Digital and Creative Industries" (Panel P278), which would probably interest many of you. Check it out and submit your abstract at https://nomadit.co.uk/conference/easst-4s2024/p/14355. Best wishes (with apologies for cross-posting), Martin Berg — Professor Martin Berg Department of Computer Science and Media Technology Malmö University https://mau.se/en/persons/martin.berg/

1 0

UN Cybercrime AHC Meeting #11 Notes
by Joly MacFie 09 Feb '24

09 Feb '24

(I am running the sessions of the 6th and Concluding meeting of the UN Cybercrime Ad Hoc Committee into Otter, for easier comprehension - https://joly.substack.com/p/51969f5d-7820-4672-9bec-0df5dd5cf3ef ) So, after 9 or so meetings hacking the treaty draft text run by Vice Chairs, Monday morning on week two, Chair Mebarki returned for a session on the actual proposed UN Resolution <https://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=A/AC.291/25&Lang=E>. The main bone of contention, which many weighed in on, was the actual name of the convention, Russia wanted the existing “Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes”, while the U.S. favored the simpler “Countering Cybercrime”. Here is how they lined up. [image: Screenshot of text] <https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep…> One would think “Cybercrime’ wins. === Article 9 of the resolution is a kind of afterthought: 9. Decides that, in order to raise awareness of cybercrime and of the role of the [name of the Convention] in combating and preventing it, [date] should be designated International Anti-Cybercrime Day. The only country to offer support for this was Russia, who referred to it as “International Cybercrime Day” (Anti- possibly lost in translation). One wonders how many zero days would be timed for this! === So, after two hours of this, the session was notable as being the first one with multistakeholder input. Access Now and EFF were called earlier last week, but were no shows, as they were also on this day. However several others stepped up to the plate for 30 mins of statements. First up, Romanian NGO eLiberare <https://www.eliberare.com/> emphasized the needs of victims of trafficking and sex abuse, suggesting the treaty contained “the bare minimum when it comes to safeguards… … to avoid retraumatization”, including adult victims. Specifically, by the suggestion of putting the burden of proving victimhood on those who have faced enormous and significant trauma, the classification of victimization grant someone access to the rights and protections, therefore, the thresholds this convention establishes have to be very well thought out. also, on sex abuse material: We express the concern regarding vagueness or a broad scope, as it could allow even for the targeting of mandatory reporters or service providers. A more narrow focus is needed for any such provision to be effective. *Privacy International* <https://privacyinternational.org/> also expressed scope concerns. Privacy international welcomes the opportunity to intervene at this session. While we recognize the cyber crimes can pose a threat to the enjoyment of human rights, my organization has long documented that human rights violations committed under the guise of combating cybercrime. We have also consistently recommended that the UN cyber crime treaty should be narrow in scope, and should contain robust safeguards to mitigate the risk of these violations. Regrettably, the latest draft fails to address many of our significant concerns. I would like to address three of these concerns. Firstly, the scope of application of investigative powers is very broad. Indeed, there is a disconnect between the chapter on criminalization and the scope of procedural measures. Under the current tax the powers afforded to law enforcement agencies apply to the investigation of criminal offences committed by means of a computer system, as well as the collection of evidence in electronic form of any criminal offence. Consequently, the scope of application of Article four appears to be expanded well beyond cyber dependent crimes. Arguably, it will make the treaty one of the most far reaching in criminal matters. These over broad scope gives rise to the danger that the convention will be used to justify the prosecution of the legitimate exercise of human rights. Secondly, we believe that the draft text is unbalanced. It gives sweeping privacy and basic powers to law enforcement agencies without robust human rights, limitations and safeguards. Article 29 and 30, for example, provide for real time collection of traffic data interception of content data. These are extremely intrusive measures that required a set of stringent limitation and safeguards. Unfortunately, article 24 does not include some key safeguards, well established in international human rights law, such as such as the principles of legality and necessity, prior independent authorization of surveillance measures, further leaves too much to discretion of State Parties in the scope of application of the human rights safeguards. Thirdly, the chapter of international cooperation is also very broad in scope of application, and with no detailed human rights safeguards. For example, in relation to sharing of personal data, the wording of article 36 fails to provide effective protection. Privacy International joined over 100 civil society organizations and experts to recommend that the convention should only move forward if it pursues a specific goal of combating cybercrime. The present draft falls far short of this goal and Privacy International recommends to comprehensively revise… At which point the mic was cut off at the 3 minute mark. The *Atticus Foundation *took up the cudgel: I would like to once again highlight our particular concerns about the latest draft of the convention, and narrow scope of the whole convention to cyber dependent crimes specifically defined and included in this text as necessary — any broader application gives rise to the danger that the convention will be used to criminalize legitimate online expression, which is likely to create discriminatory impacts and deepen gender inequality. To include a language or specific provisions against excessive criminalization to ensure that security researchers, whistleblowers, journalists and human rights defenders are not prosecuted for the legitimate activities, and that other public interest activities are protected. To strengthen data protection and international human rights standards throughout the entire convention is required. This means removing references to domestic standards, and including the principles of non discrimination, legality, legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality, as well as introducing explicit references to safeguards such as prior traditional authorization for, for accessing or sharing data, as well as for conducting cross border investigations, and cooperation in accordance with the rule of law, a right to notification as soon as investigations allow, and the right to effective remedy. The two are connected and one makes no sense without the other. Finally, to mainstream gender across the convention, so as to ensure the convention is not used to undermine people's human rights on the basis of gender. Furthermore, to limit the scope of application of procedural measures and international cooperation to cyber dependent crimes, established in the criminalization chapter of the convention, in order not to undermine trust in secure communications, and infringe on international human rights standards. And finally, Madam Chair, avoiding endorsing any surveillance provisions that can be abused to undermine cybersecurity and encryption, so as not to allow for excessive information sharing for law enforcement cooperation beyond the scope of specific criminal investigations. Madam Chair, the final outcome of the treaty negotiation process should only be deemed accessible if it effectively incorporates strong and meaningful safeguards to protect human rights ensures legal clarity for fairness and due process and fosters international cooperation under the rule of law, International Chamber of Commerce <https://iccwbo.org/> had concerns: We are very worried that the latest drafts and amendments continue to include deficiencies that could end up jeopardizing cybersecurity, compromising data, privacy, and eroding online rights and freedoms, Let me just highlight one major point of concern for international business across regions and industry sectors, and this is access to data held by the private sector. As it currently stands, the Convention does not sufficiently limit access to data to what is necessary and proportionate to law enforcement needs. The convention should include provisions to ensure clarity and predictability in government access, and embrace transparency. Furthermore, real time collection of traffic data and interception of content data are considered a significant invasion of privacy and references to such practices should be removed from the convention. In addition, provisions are needed to ensure that states cannot demand access to data in third states without the third state's explicit consent. *Cybersecurity Tech Accord* <https://cybertechaccord.org/> was brutal: First, the treaty would weaken cybersecurity globally by facilitating the compromising of critical security measures and the criminalization of penetration test. testing in cybersecurity research that keeps the digital ecosystem resilient against cyber criminals. Second, the convention would slow down sharing of electronic evidence without a specific narrow scope and clear a dual criminality provisions. Data custodians will be asked to break the law in one state to comply with data requests from another frustrating cooperation. Third is just mentioned, the convention would generate serious conflicts of laws. Just one example is the new italicized language and articles 42, 44 and 45. That would force service providers to hand over data in secret irrespective of where it is located, and without the knowledge of the state that it is in. This violates the law in many countries, Article 4, and the UN Charter. Fourth, the text would allow any state party to obtain the personal information of other states citizens without sufficient safeguards and perpetual secrecy, forcing service providers to hand over data with no ability to notify users or object even when those requests are manifestly unlawful. Fifth by leaving it completely in the hands of individual states to define the breadth and type of subject matter that comes under its scope. The convention facilitates human rights violations and put lives at risk. Finally, allowing for secret access to secured systems, extraterritorial exfiltration of data and secret real time surveillance with no transparency safeguards presents grave risks to States national security as well. Abuse of key provisions could result in real time surveillance of an access to the secret data of state officials without the knowledge of the impacted state. We don't support the adoption of the convention or ratification of it unless all six of these issues are meaningfully addressed, and we can't support the compromise package either. It continues to allow states to decide what crimes the convention would cover if even the most incidental use of ICTs was involved, and e-evidence for all serious crimes. The limitation to serious crimes is not meaningful for all the reasons previously stated in our submissions, and the link to unspecified other instruments creates more ambiguity. Madam Chair, our concerns are not theoretical. They're based on what is happening right now two firms globally. Regrettably, this negotiation is going in the wrong direction. What we have before us is a bad treaty that has united civil society and industry opposition, in a way I've never seen in decades working in international relations. *Microsoft* <https://www.microsoft.com/> pulled no punches: Having listened carefully to the deliberations last week, and having consulted extensively with member states as well as with other stakeholders, we are even more concerned going into the second week. As currently drafted, neither the zero draft now the seventh session draft, nor the various compromised proposals, adequately addressed the concerns industry and civil society have raised. Each version that we have seen could have profound negative impact on the digital ecosystem, including the severe risk of creating a digital surveillance treaty in the guise of a Cybercrime Convention. Again, nothing of what I say should come as a surprise to anybody. The position of stakeholders, both from industry and civil society has been remarkably aligned on these concerns. As I've said before, in my now 20 plus years of working in multilateral and multi stakeholder negotiations, I've never witnessed industry and civil society to be as aligned in their concerns as I've seen during this process. By and large, we could all swap and read each other's statements, and frankly, that alone should give pause to member states. Looking at the current state of play, Microsoft is disappointed that our key concerns on the various draft texts, that we and other industry and civil society entities broadly and continuously shared with member states, have not been adequately addressed. And, frankly, looking at the trajectory of the draft text that appears that each compromise practice is becoming more problematic. Microsoft urges states to use the remainder of this week to clearly and narrowly define the scope of this treaty, improve safeguards throughout the convention, specifically as it pertains to covert surveillance and strengthen protections for cybercrime researchers. Otherwise this convention could not only gravely harm fundamental rights and create a confusing cooperation landscape for states and providers, but it could allow cybercrime to thrive and make cyberspace considerably less secure. And we could not support its ratification. *Ambivium Institute* <https://www.facebook.com/AmbiviumInstitute/> raised a good point about the GDC possibly conflicting with this Convention. A world that is striving to become digitally connected will need that it is connected with the landscape of each country. Those who desire to close the gaps lack the capacity to effectively implement most of the item being advocated here. It will be important for government and civil society to clearly push for domestic rule of law that align with existing law that guarantees political rights and safety n the area of privacy. Keeping in mind, as member states are advancing these conventions, the Summit of the Future is also drafting language that calls for a Digital Compact that will be different from the language of these conventions. Digital cooperation is necessary for countries to protect the safety of individual when online. The data infrastructure should not negate the definition of crime in online space. This convention is still the beginning stage for a long negotiation between the global north and global south wherever the exchange of new technology will need and will continue to be the problem. I urge countries that are developed to be open and to share their knowledge, and to also make open technology available for countries and stakeholders that are still lacking money to fund it. and, finally, *DB Connect* advocated capacity building. Cybercrime knows no boundaries, criminals can orchestrate attacks from anywhere in the world targeting victims across different jurisdictions without international cooperation. Law enforcement agencies are limited in their ability to investigate, collect evidence and apprehend perpetrators operating abroad. Different countries possess unique strengths and expertise in combating cybercrime, therefore, here today, as multistakeholders, I'm diligently asking member states to understand that sharing knowledge, best practices, and resources, allows for a more comprehensive and effective response. Joint operations and training programs can enhance the capabilities of law enforcement agencies worldwide. *VIDEO* <https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1f/k1fiyqkyay>* | **OTTER* <https://otter.ai/u/D8tnkZ9pM9x6WyG5dSN46hB5oFI?utm_source=copy_url> -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 1

Attention, Perception and Machine Vision: Videos from King's events
by Joanna Zylinska 09 Feb '24

09 Feb '24

Dear All, I wanted to let you know that recordings from two recent events organised by the Centre for Attention Studies (part of the Digital Futures Institute at King’s College London) are now available online: ATTENTION! This is a playlist of 13 lightning talks on the topic of attention, by King’s scholars from different disciplines. Presented from a variety of disciplines – from literature, philosophy, education and digital humanities through to psychology, neuroscience, politics and business – the talks are an attempt to map the new field of Attention Studies. This is a field where academic research meets a wider socio-ethical obligation to figure out what it means to live well, with and through technology. You can watch them all here: [1]https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLU0ka4iPReX6BKqCwKn3VJhwjxy2I XgzN How Humans and Machines See the World The event explored the following questions: Can machines see? What does it mean for humans to endow machines with the capacity for seeing? But do we actually understand how humans see the world? And is there even a ‘we’ that does the seeing? The speakers included: Paula Gortázar (Westminster), Daniel Chávez Heras (King’s), Leonardo Impett (Cambridge) and Joanna Zylinska (King’s). Watch the recording: [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CtwWBqE_Aw&ab_channel=King%27sDigit alFuturesInstitute Best, Joanna -- Joanna Zylinska Professor of Media Philosophy + Critical Digital Practice Director (Interim) of the [3]Centre for Attention Studies King's College London Department of Digital Humanities NEW BOOK: [4]The Perception Machine: Our Photographic Future between the Eye and AI (MIT Press, open access) [5]Website [6]IG research notebook References 1. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLU0ka4iPReX6BKqCwKn3VJhwjxy2IXgzN 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CtwWBqE_Aw&ab_channel=King'sDigitalFuturesInstitute 3. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/centre-attention-studies 4. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262546836/the-perception-machine/ 5. http://www.joannazylinska.net/ 6. https://www.instagram.com/joanna.zylinska/

1 0

Workshop Announcement "Perspectives on Hybrid Human–AI Systems. Bringing Together Interdisciplinary Approaches"
by Libuše Hannah Vepřek 09 Feb '24

09 Feb '24

******************************** Apologies for cross-posting ******************************** Dear colleagues and list members, We would like to draw your attention to the interdisciplinary workshop "Perspectives on Hybrid Human-AI Systems. Bringing Together Interdisciplinary Approaches" which will take place from April 10 to 12, 2024, in Munich, Germany. The workshop will bring together researchers, experts, and individuals interested in hybrid human-AI systems to discuss how different disciplines understand and address these hybrid systems, and how these individual perspectives can contribute to an interdisciplinary understanding of the collaboration between humans and machines. The full abstract is available below. We look forward to presentations from cultural and social anthropology, sociology, philosophy and ethics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, computer science, and media informatics by (in alphabetical order) Christoph Bareither (University of Tübingen) Anne Dippel (University of Jena) Steven Dorrestijn (Saxion University of Applied Sciences) Orit Halpern (TU Dresden) Catholijn Jonker (TU Delft) Gertraud Koch (University of Hamburg) Pietro Michelucci (Human Computation Institute) Rainer Mühlhoff (University of Osnabrück) Albrecht Schmidt (LMU Munich) Roanne van Voorst (University of Amsterdam) The complete program, including the Lightning Talk panels, can be found at https://www.ekwee.uni-muenchen.de/vkee_download/hhais-workshop_program_shor… For further information visit: https://www.ekwee.uni-muenchen.de/aktuelles/veranstaltungen/hybrid-human_ai…. Participation is free of charge. Registrations are accepted until *March 15, 2024*, by email at hhais-workshop(a)ekwee.uni-muenchen.de. Questions can be directed to Libuše Vepřek: libuse.veprek(a)uni-tuebingen.de Note: Due to a limited number of places and for sustainability reasons, we ask for a binding registration with a 30 Euro deposit, which will be refunded after the conference. Our experience has shown that often participants register but then do not show up, leading to a significant over-preparation of food and other resources that ultimately go to waste. With this practice, we aim to avoid this as much as possible. If registered guests do not show up, the money will be donated to a social or cultural project. Johannes Moser, Leonie Thal und Libuše Hannah Vepřek Perspectives on Hybrid Human-AI Systems. Bringing Together Interdisciplinary Approaches  Johannes Moser, Libuše Hannah Vepřek, and Leonie Thal  The research fields of /Human Computation/ and /Hybrid Intelligence/ investigate how the capabilities of humans and computers can be combined in novel ways, thereby overcoming the limitations of today’s strictly computational /Artificial Intelligence/ systems, and yielding the ability to address problems that neither can solve on their own. Such hybrid human–AI systems are of interest to several scientific disciplines, including computer science, philosophy, sociology, design, and cultural anthropology, as they not only enable new computational and engineering capabilities while posing interesting new problems on their own but also influence societies on a structural level and our everyday life at the micro level. They elicit questions on the human–AI relations in these hybrid systems that are ethical, judicial, social, cultural, logical, algorithmic, practical, and material in nature. This workshop brings together scholars, experts, and interested parties with an interest in hybrid human–AI systems to learn how different disciplines understand and approach these systems. The aim is to discuss how each discipline can contribute to an interdisciplinary understanding of the collaboration of humans and machines in such hybrid systems. With this workshop, we want to spark new conversations between different disciplines, addressing, among others, the following questions: * How does human computation and hybrid intelligence relate to pursuits of and discourses on /Artificial General Intelligence/ / /Strong AI/? * How can we grasp human-technology and societal relations unfolding within these systems? * How is trust established and (re)negotiated in such systems? * What forms of ethics arise in and with hybrid human-AI systems? * What are the unique perspectives of the different disciplines, and how can these inform one another? * How can we arrive at understandings that consider the disciplines’ different approaches and modes of reasoning? * How can we work together on these topics?  The workshop is organized as part of the research project “Playing /in the Loop/: New Human-Software Relations in Human Computation Systems and their Impacts on the Spheres of Everyday Life” funded by the German Research Foundation. The Fritz Thyssen Foundation, the Carl Friedrich von Siemens Foundation, and the Münchner Vereinigung für Volkskunde e.V. provide additional funding for the workshop.  April 10–12, 2024 Carl Friedrich von Siemens Foundation Südliches Schloßrondell 23 80638 Munich, Germany. -- Libuše Hannah Vepřek, M.A., M.Sc. Pronomen / Pronouns: sie, ihr / she, her Ludwig-Uhland-Institut für Empirische Kulturwissenschaft Universität Tübingen Burgsteige 11 72070 Tübingen

1 0

Call for Chapters: Handbook on Anthropology and Artificial Intelligence
by sahana udupa 09 Feb '24

09 Feb '24

Dear all, *Call for chapters* *Handbook on Anthropology and Artificial Intelligence* Edited by Sahana Udupa, Michiel Baas and Peter Hervik We are pleased to invite chapter contributions for the upcoming handbook on “Anthropology and Artificial Intelligence” (contracted with Edward Elgar Publishing, London). The handbook is designed as a comprehensive collection of anthropological studies on AI, covering empirical, methodological, theoretical and reflexive works emerging within the discipline of anthropology. We welcome submissions that may include original ethnographic fieldwork, conceptual or theoretical developments, methodological discussion or a combination of these. Authors are invited to send an extended abstract (1200 words) that engage with any of the topics below: - Anthropology and the post-human: Genealogies and current debates - AI in the majority world - Critical studies of AI: Coloniality, race, gender, sexualities - Regulation, governance and politics - AI in everyday life (care work, health, finance, farming and other fields of application) - Art, creativity, and imagination - Ethnographies of AI developers, labs and developer spaces, coding practices - Geek/hacker communities, resistance and activism - Anthropological methods with, around or against AI - Ethics and AI - Disinformation and extreme speech - AI and the anthropocene (environment, cosmologies, multispecies anthropology) - Speculative musings - what do futures with or without AI look like? What is anthropology’s stake in defining the future course of AI? - AI, anthropology and human consciousness Please email the abstracts with a brief bio to ai4dignity(a)ethnologie.lmu.de before 20 March 2024. Please feel free to contact us using the above email ID if you have any questions. Shortlisted abstracts will be invited to submit full chapters (6000 words, including references). Full chapters are due by 31 October 2024. The handbook will feature original contributions which are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Best wishes *** Sahana Udupa | Professor of Media Anthropology | LMU Munich PI, ERC Consolidator Grant, Contentious Speech on Small Platforms Selected publications: https://lmu-munich.academia.edu/SahanaUdupa

1 0

Reminder: CFP - Abstracts Due Feb 29, 2024 - All Things In Moderation
by Venessa Paech 08 Feb '24

08 Feb '24

Dear Colleagues, I hope the New Year has been treating you well. A reminder that the CFP for the second annual All Things in Moderation conference<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/N_v7CP7LAXf0XMGrVUzu1im?domain=allthingsi…> (16-17 May, 2024) closes on Feb 29, 2024. 2024 CALL FOR PAPERS: MODERATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS Proposal deadline: Feb 29, 2024. Papers due May 2024. ATIM is a virtual conference to ensure accessibility and inclusivity. The inaugural All Things in Moderation was held in May 2023 and was a great success, uniting moderation researchers, policymakers and practitioners from around the world around the theme of 'Cultures of Care'. Last years program can be accessed here.<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/MHnQCQnMBZfXPrAEZuP_JwV?domain=events.zoo…> Some speakers for 2024 have been announced (and early-bird tickets are now on sale) –https://bit.ly/ATIM2024 The world is experiencing an age of poly-crises, including increasing environmental disasters, rising refugee numbers and displacement, war and invasion, generational economic inequities, declining social cohesion, a rise in authoritarianism and a decline in democracy, surging online hate, and more. These concerns are deeply interconnected, and, although they impact regions and communities unevenly, they materialise in a wide range of online communities and digital social settings. Humans who moderate are tasked with building or maintain safe, constructive interactions and cultures for diverse purposes - amongst and despite these crises - and in many cases, are leveraging their moderation practices to facilitate empathy and understanding. All Things in Moderation 2024 puts the age of crises under the microscope, and seeks to examine the role and impacts of online moderation in this era, with the goal of generating critical research and promoting greater understanding and visibility of diverse moderation practices. We invite papers and academic contributions for ATIM 2024 that focus on the following and related themes: * Moderation in times of crisis (social, political, cultural, economic, environmental, etc.)  * The impact of war on online communities and moderators  * Moderation as a colonising or decolonising practice  * Moderating online activism  * Moderation as resistance  * Trauma informed approaches to moderation  * The relationships between state actors, platforms and moderators  * How automation and AI is impacting moderation in turbulent times  We welcome proposals for papers or panel (with several papers) exploring any and all aspects of these topics. In particular, we welcome submissions from non-dominant voices in academic or media on these issues, and from the global South. Email Abstracts or Proposals of 300 words with a short biography to venessa.paech(a)sydney.edu.au by February 29, 2024. Final papers are due in May 2024 for summarised presentation at the conference. Organisers plan to pursue a special issue journal based on contributions. Regards, VENESSA PAECH, BFA, MA She/Hers PhD Student | Community in the Age of Machine Culture Department of Media and Communication | Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Lecturer: Community Management Phone: + 61 0435 217 315

1 0

ACM MobiHoc 2024: Oct 7-10, 2024, Athens, Greece
by Eirini Eleni Tsiropoulou 08 Feb '24

08 Feb '24

=========================================================== Our apologizes for multiple copies of this email ============================================================ ACM MobiHoc 2024: Oct 7-10, 2024, Athens, Greece https://www.sigmobile.org/mobihoc/2024/ Call for Papers ACM MobiHoc is a premier conference with a highly selective single-track technical program dedicated to addressing the challenges emerging from networked and distributed systems that must operate in the face of dynamics, ranging from changing user demands to connectivity and resource availability. Examples of such dynamic networks include wired/wireless communication networks, datacenters, Internet-of-Things and sensors, mobile autonomous systems, energy, social, and transportation networks. We encourage work that presents new performance evaluation methods, novel algorithms, or provides fundamental insights for these systems. We are interested both in innovative works in an unexplored and/or emerging topic in the broad area of networks, and in novel findings and/or new insights that build on existing works. The specific areas of interest include, but are not limited to: * Internet-of-Things (IoT), 5G, and next-generation wireless systems * Blockchain, social networks, societal networks, and emerging networked systems * Cloud computing, edge computing, datacenter networks, and distributed computing over networks * Software Defined Networking, Network Function Virtualization, and virtual Radio Access Networks * Information-centric networking, network caching, and coded caching * Trust, security, and privacy in networks and networked systems * Coded computation and inference in networks * Incentive mechanism and interaction analysis of networked systems, network economics * Big-data analytics, machine learning for networks and networked systems, and network support to machine learning * Modeling, analysis, optimization, and control in computer and mobile networks * Networked and mobile unmanned/autonomous systems * Experimental studies on mobile networks and networked systems * Networked sensing and communication with new medium, e.g., light/acoustic/mmWave * Low power sensor protocols and energy-harvesting systems * Wearables and mobile health Authors can keep their names on their submitted paper, i.e., submissions are not required to be double blind. Authors can also prepare technical reports that are made available on their own websites and on purely archiving organizations such as arXiv.org. However, all submissions must comply with the dual submission policy. Each paper has a chance to submit a one-page rebuttal for the reviews. All submitted papers will be considered for a Best Paper Award. A selected set of papers will be chosen for fast-tracked publication in IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking. Papers are expected to be direct and specific about their results, contributions, and context. Important Dates March 24, 2024 Abstract Registration Deadline (11:59pm EST) March 31, 2024 Paper Submission Deadline (11:59pm EST) June 6-12, 2024 Rebuttal July 14, 2024 Notification of Acceptance Oct 7-10, 2024 Conference General Chair * Symeon Papavassiliou, National Technical University of Athens, Greece TPC Chairs * Javad Ghaderi, Columbia University, USA * Stefan Schmid, Technical University of Berlin, Germany -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eirini Eleni Tsiropoulou, Associate Professor Computer Engineering Chair Director of Recruiting and Admissions Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM, 87131 Office: 326B Tel.: (505)-277-5501 Email: eirini(a)unm.edu<mailto:eirini@unm.edu> Website: PROTON Lab<http://ece-research.unm.edu/tsiropoulou/index.html> PROTON Lab's News: @Tsiropoulou_EE<https://twitter.com/Tsiropoulou_EE> "Those who know, do. Those that understand, teach." ~ Aristotle

1 0

Innovative Methods Seminar - Using Games as/for Research
by Gemma Milne 08 Feb '24

08 Feb '24

[Apologies for cross-posting!] Hey everyone, I'm organising another 'Innovative Methods seminar' as part of the University of Glasgow’s College of Social Science Digital Society & Economy Interdisciplinary Research Theme - I'd love to invite you all! The sessions are online - more details on our February event below, hope to see some of you there. Cheers, Gemma -- Book here: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/innovative-methods-seminar-using-games-asfor… Date: Friday February 23rd, 1pm-2pm About the Innovative Methods Seminar series: Our workshops run for 50 min. each with time for presentation and Q&A. We will have one speaker per each event and all events will be hosted online, via Zoom. Every speaker will share their digital methodology/methods and the project in which the methodology was applied or developed, with a particular focus on the innovative aspects of that methodology, including benefits, challenges, ethical dimensions, challenges, etc. The audience for these workshops are members of the Digital Society and Economy Interdisciplinary Research Theme, including peer scholars and doctoral students. Abstract: We all play games, whether consciously for entertainment and education, or in interacting with digital systems that increasingly ‘gamify’ modern society, hinting towards an unseen future ‘metaverse’. However, how may we further use video games and simulations as research tools? University of Glasgow Games and Gaming Lab runs or hosts different cross-college projects promoting research into games themselves, but also into finding new ways of translating research and data into game form, or using games as innovative research tools. Whether modelling space missions or gaming the effects of generative AI, what are some possibilities and challenges posed by games? Equally, how may our uses of ‘history’ in such games critically change our ways of approaching future simulations? About our speaker: Dr Timothy Noël Peacock is a Lecturer in History and War Studies and Co-Director/founder of the University of Glasgow Games and Gaming Lab (UofGGamesLab). He leads up to 35 researchers, interns and programmers as Principal Investigator for funded research and educational cross-disciplinary innovation projects. His research ranges across nuclear history, space history/security, games and wargaming, to AI and politics, including the socio-political and military impacts of new technologies. -- Gemma Milne PhD researcher, University of Edinburgh School of Social & Political Science Science & Technology writer & broadcaster Co-host of the Radical Science<https://www.sciencedisrupt.com/> podcast Twitter: @gemmamilne<https://twitter.com/gemmamilne> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

1 0

4S/EAST panel - Historicizing state quantification in disciplinary and control societies
by Nemer, David (dn6nn) 08 Feb '24

08 Feb '24

Hello everyone, I would like to invite you to submit your abstract to the panel that we are organizing. Historicizing state quantification in disciplinary and control societies Luke Stark (Western University) Melissa Adler (University of Western Ontario) David Nemer (University of Virginia) https://nomadit.co.uk/conference/easst-4s2024/p/14425 Short Abstract: Numerical techniques and technologies used to inscribe and circulate differences—racial, gendered, class, caste-based, and others—are everywhere in disciplinary and control societies. This panel interrogates the history of these quantitative mechanisms of power, and the ways they have been resisted. Long Abstract: Numerous thinkers (including Fanon, Foucault, Deleuze, Crenshaw, Hartman, Freire, and others) have theorized the ways in which the political arithmetic of the capitalist state and its agents has prompted the development of numerical techniques and technologies to inscribe and circulate differences—racial, gendered, class, caste-based, and others—about populations intended for exploitation and dispossession. In this panel, we aim to further interrogate the history of these quantitative, statistical, and inferential mechanisms of power. >From the Enlightenment calculation of early American enslavers to the contemporary deep learning transformations of artificial intelligence (AI) practitioners, and even the human infrastructures that transmit disinformation through messaging apps, numbers have never been neutral nor free from narrative. This panel will focus on the continuities in thinking and practice around the use of numbers as a tool of oppression across both space and time, and the often-nuanced strategies of resistance and cooption that progressive social movements have deployed in response. Some of the questions we hope to see addressed by the panel include the following: • How have historical discourses and ideologies of inequality, oppression, and supremacy prompted, shaped, and refined quantitative or technical metrics and mechanisms of scientific or social differentiation? • How have the developers of these metrics and techniques drawn on transnational or global circuits of oppression? • What are examples of such technical metrics and mechanisms being developed in an overtly oppressive context and then laundered into more general scientific practice? How have professional fields such as medicine, statistics, and psychology grappled with or ignored these historical genealogies? • How have people and communities targeted by such numerical mechanisms resisted, responded, refused, and coopted these technologies? What have been the results of such encounters, and what lessons can contemporary groups dedicated to opposing unfreedom take from these historical examples? -- David Nemer, PhD Associate Professor, Department of Media Studies Faculty Affiliate, Department of Anthropology Interim Director, Latin American Studies Program University of Virginia Faculty Associate, Berkman Klein Center Visiting Scholar, Institute for Rebooting Social Media Harvard University http://dnemer.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.dnemer.com_&d=DwMGa…> https://twitter.com/DavidNemer<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_DavidNemer…> Books: Technology of the Oppressed (MIT Press, 2022), winner of the Marcel Roche Book Award. - https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/technology-oppressed<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mitpress.mit.edu_books…> Tecnologia do Oprimido (Editora Milfontes, 2021) - https://editoramilfontes.com.br/loja/Tecnologia_do_oprimido<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__editoramilfontes.com.b…> Favela Digital: The other side of technology (GSA, 2013) - http://favela-digital.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__favela-2Ddigital.com_&d…>

1 0