- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

UN Cybercrime AHC - Day 2 notes
by Joly MacFie 01 Feb '24

01 Feb '24

Lot of hacking through Otter to make notes. How many days I can keep this up, i don't know, but I will continue running it into Otter. https://joly.substack.com/p/51969f5d-7820-4672-9bec-0df5dd5cf3ef Day 2 had delegates getting into the body of the draft text, discussing some sections that were hopefully just about ready for primetime. Any which didn't gather consensus were 'parked' i.e. punted off to 'informal' sessions.. Also, the Chair introduced a 3 minute timer, after which speaker's microphones would be automatically cut. Before we got into it, Costa Rica got in its 2c on human rights and gender in the preamble. Costa Rica believes that human rights are not simply just rhetoric. It is > not an item of the agenda that can be included or deleted. Human rights are > intrinsically related to the dignity of human beings. This is why they are > present in a cross kind of way in all international documents. So, taking > this into account, we do not see it possible for the preamble of the > convention not to have a solid reference to the importance of protecting > human rights in cyberspace. Costa Rica strongly believes that all rights > are applicable in cyberspace and should be guaranteed in the same way as > they are outside of cyberspace. It would not be possible to build an > instrument that establishes a commoncriminal policy with the purpose of > protecting society from cybercrime, as mentioned in paragraph four in the > preamble, without taking into account the protection of human rights, we > cannot leave outside a specific mention in paragraph 10, on the importance > of incorporating a gender perspective, in all efforts to prevent and combat > crime in cyberspace. Because Costa Rica regrets that gender violence online > is just as serious as real gender violence, it's very important for this > convention to take into account the adverse and diverse differentiated > impact of gender violence that also extends to cyberspace. This is why we > support the dimensions that included in the preamble should be maintained > in the next version of the text. We aspire to a free, open, safe and > peaceful cyberspace for all people. Then we were on to Chapter I - General provisions - Article 1 > Article 1. Statement of purpose The purposes of this Convention are to: (a) Promote and strengthen measures to prevent and combat [cybercrime] [the > use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes] > more efficiently and effectively; (b) Promote, facilitate and strengthen international cooperation in > preventing and combating [cybercrime] [the use of information and > communications technologies for criminal purposes]; and [agreed ad > referendum] (c) Promote, facilitate and support technical assistance and > capacity-building to prevent and combat [cybercrime] [the use of > information and communications technologies for criminal purposes], in > particular for the benefit of developing countries. A lot of countries wanted the inclusion of 'technology transfer' in c), however not the U.S, which thought it should go in Article 54, a whole section dedicated to technical assistance. Some countries agreed. This was eventually parked til 54 itself be fully defined. Then, on to Chapter II - Criminalization. This contains articles 6 to 16, much referred to later, which listed criminal behaviors. > Article 6. Illegal access > Article 7. Illegal interception > Article 8. Interference with [computer data] [digital information] > Article 9. Interference with [a computer system] [an information and > communications technology device] > Article 10. Misuse of devices > Article 11. [Computer] [Information and communications technology]-related > forgery > Article 12. [Computer] [Information and communications technology]-related > theft or fraud > Article 13. Offences related to online child sexual abuse or child sexual > exploitation material > Article 14. Solicitation or grooming for the purpose of committing a > sexual offence against a child > Article 15. Non-consensual dissemination of intimate images > Article 16. Laundering of proceeds of crime The chair asked delegates to be "flexible' Noting that in Article four of this convention, we reiterate the principle > of sovereignty of states, and therefore, no one takes away your right to > make laws within your domestic jurisdiction. It will however, be difficult > for us to reach consensus if we continue to insist that what is peculiar to > us must also be imposed on every other person. However, many of the articles have the wording: > Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be > necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law The USA noted that Article 16 > is drafted can be read to include money laundering offenses that have no > connection whatsoever to cybercrime, so > To remedy this, we would propose a new paragraph three that would make > clear that in offense is only considered an offense under the article where > the predicate offense is an offense established in accordance with articles > six to 15. They also noted a tautology in the article > Each State Party shall include as predicate offences, relevant offences > established in accordance with this Convention; since article 16 itself is in the Convention! Russia complained about the lack of time spent on preparing these articles, adding > once again, we have to note with great regret the lack in the draft of the > convention, articles that we proposed as recognizing as offenses using > ICTs, for terrorist purposes, for the proliferation of weapons, drugs, > incitement to illegal activities, or other activities. inducement to > suicide, rehabilitation of Nazism, justification of genocide and illegal > impact on critical infrastructure. before they were cut off by the timer. The Chair responded suggesting delegates focus on what was in the draft, not what wasn't. Russia got back on the mic and, somewhat grudgingly agreed. Articles 6 & 7 contains the phrase "dishonest intent". Russia wanted it changed to "unlawful aim", Mauritania "illegal intent",. Cameroon "criminal intent". The Chair insisted that states could use whatever language they wanted, but Cameroon responded > Mr. Chairman, what we're doing here, no, don't don't try to present this > as kind of light or or inconsequential work, we are expressing positions as > sovereign states. So, please let us go to the end of what we're trying to > express. You can't just say that afterwards, each state can do as it > wishes, no, once we have a convention, if we adopt a convention that each > state has already agreed to this, the specific provisions, so Mr. Chairman, > I really would like to support your methodology. However, the adaptions of > ad referendum, which are increasing in number, will ultimately, could > actually, muzzle states. So, we should not in any way restrict the > sovereign right of states to to express their views on the wording or the > provisions of this convention. without mention of 6, 7 was parked. On to article 8 - Interference with data, which is > when committed intentionally and without right, the damaging, deletion, > deterioration, alteration or suppression of [computer data] [digital > information]. Russia wanted "copying," added before "damaging". However the U.S, suggested copying was covered in Article 6 (Access), and other delegates. Russia wouldn't back down. .Parked. On to Article 9 - Interference with a device. No objections. On to Article 10 - Misuse of devices This essentially pertained to hacks aka "devices". Russia objected to > A State Party may require by law that a number of such items be possessed > before criminal liability attaches. . as vague. Parked. On to Article 11 - Forgery > deletion or suppression of [computer data] [digital information] resulting > in inauthentic data with the intent that they be considered or acted upon > for legal purposes as if they were authentic, regardless of whether or not > the data are directly readable and intelligible One would imagine this would include deep fakes etc, but that is creation rather than "deletion or suppression". Senegal took this up. > We have a proposal for the wording of the criminalization of the use of > falsified computer data. We think that there should be a specific offense > here through the insertion of a specific text that criminalizes the fact of > using computer data that is falsified. The Chair suggested they draft it as a separate offense, They agreed. Russia wanted to delete para 2 > A State Party may require an intent to defraud, or a similar dishonest > intent, before criminal liability attaches. but was laughed off by EU, US, and even Egypt, since "may" indicates the provision is voluntary. No further objections. On to Article 12 - ICT related theft or fraud Again, Russia wanted "dishonest" changed to "illegal", but Australia pushed back. > We believe it's confusing and circular to add an additional unlawful > intent element. And that dishonest intent is appropriate here. Dishonest > intent provides clear parameters about when conduct will be an offence, > where it is done with dishonest intent and not limited only to intentional > conduct. So we consider that the existing references to dishonest intent > actually enhance the flexibility of the convention, applying to a range of > different legal systems. There was much discussion on 'fraud' vs 'theft'.. Some wanted theft removed, however India, Iran, China and Russia all wanted to retain. At this point the session timed out and Meeting #3 was concluded The afternoon session Meeting #4 started out on Chapter IV - procedural measures and law enforcement, > Article 23. Scope of procedural measures > Article 25. Expedited preservation of stored [computer data] [digital > information] > Article 26. Expedited preservation and partial disclosure of traffic data > Article 27. Production order > Article 28. Search and seizure of stored [computer data] [digital > information] > Article 29. Real-time collection of traffic data > Article 30. Interception of content data On Article 23 - scope SIngapore kicked things off by suggesting that the scope be tightened to the offenses define in Articles 6 to 16, A lot of countries supported this. The US had reservations: 1) 6 to 16 still being defined 2) "we don't yet know the fate of article 17" Article 17 reads > Article 17. Offences relating to other international treaties > States Parties shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be > necessary to ensure that offences established in accordance with applicable > international conventions and protocols also apply when committed through > the use > of [a computer system] [an information and communications technology > device]. CARICOM wanted Article 17 to be moved out of the Criminalization Chapter to elsewhere in the Convention, Iran wondered about the meaning of the word 'specific' in the phrase "specific criminal investigation". Others responded that it was required as a safeguard against creep. Russia opposed Singapore, saying > We do not think that law enforcement bodies at the national level, we > don't believe that they shouldn't have the opportunity to use all possible > authority and measures to prevent and counter this kind of these kinds of > offenses. They also wanted some mention of 'prevention', and to delete 'specific', suggesting it would lead to "legal uncertainty". However, nobody else supported them. Article 23 was parked. On to Article 25. Expedited preservation of data. This includes the wording > State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be > necessary to oblige that person to preserve and maintain the integrity of > [those computer data] [that digital information] for a period of time as > long as necessary, up to a maximum of ninety days, to enable the competent > authorities to seek its disclosure. Many countries, led by Russia, wanted 'maximum' changed to 'minimum'. India wanted 'person' changed to 'legal person'. On Article 28 - Production, Austria Before Russia was cut off earlier, they talked about this, and wanted emphasis on "state party's territory" for clarity. It would seem that this clause does not mean that that States are required to produce for external case, however Austria later cautioned > If you say that the competent authorities should search or similarly > access in the territory of that state party, that means that the access is > going to take place in the territory of the state party, but the data or > the computer system might be anywhere else in the world. And I was > wondering, those delegations who hold sovereignty aspects very dearly, > whether they would want to live with this effect that access is going to > take part in Austria, for example, but the data or the computer system > would be in Russia or in China. I don't think we want to have that effect. > Right? I hope we can all agree to that. Russia said they would think about that. On articles 29 and 30, the 'snooping' clauses, the EU withdrew it's earlier objections, based on proposed safeguards in Chapter V - International cooperation. Malaysia, Switzerland, Mexico voiced similar concerns. Norway noted that all these articles are dependent on Article 20 - Statute of Limitations as a safeguard, but Article 20 actually calls for extending or even suspending SoL's for 'serious cybercrimes'. Australia argued that determining the "serious' threshold should be left to states, rather that the definition in Article 2 (h) > “Serious crime” shall mean conduct constituting an offence punishable by a > maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years; Then focus turned to articles 31 to 34 > Article 31. Freezing, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime > Article 32. Establishment of criminal record > Article 33. Protection of witnesses > Article 34. Assistance to and protection of victims Article 31 - Japan regretted that its earlier proposal to limit confiscations to serious crimes had not garnered support, but was trying again. Sweden, Albania, &.Iceland support. EU supports and wants to limit the scope to 6 to 16. Costa Rica, Korea, Vanuatu and Paraguay supportalso for 32, 33. Nigeria, Iran oppose. China opposes as premature / repetitive Russia also opposes saying: > in fact,we don't understand what doubts countries can have the country the > reference to to specific articles rather than the scope of the current > convention. Re; "serious" language, presumably in japan's proposalUS notes para 10 wording > Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the > measures to which it refers shall be defined and implemented in accordance > with the provisions of the domestic law of a State Party. I guess, agreeing with China & Russia that there is no real reason to be specific, since states can define for themselves. Article 32-33. Singapore wanted scope changed to 6-16. Russia wanted the opposite, 34 too..Australia wanted to delete "in good faith" pertaining to witnesses, for more flexibility. Presumably bad faith witnesses also need protecting? Tanzania wants to change 'domestic law' to 'domestic legal system' and also add the word 'prosecutive' to the existing 'investigative'. Article 34 ( Victims) Egypt wanted to get rid of "with relevant stakeholders', and drop the "particular circumstances' para 8 entirely (gender). Argentina and Tanzania wanted to add "subject to its domestic law." Canada spoke up for gender. USA wanted to limit the scope from "Convention" to Articles 6 to 16, and yay to gender, NZ, Colombia, Iceland, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Panama, Albania also yay to keeping gender in there. Nigeria is non-committal, saying > Nigeria is paying very close attention to the reference to gender in > article 34 paragraph four, I understand that different jurisdiction have > different understanding of gender, especially in this context. For Nigeria, > gender in this context means sex, and if perhaps, it cannot any other > meaning other than what is defined in domestic legislation. Perhaps it may > be important to further clarify that as we make progress. Norway said > we have supported at the last session more inclusive language in Article > Five, we did agree to delete the language there, but that was really that > was really because we saw that it was included other in other places. So > deleting it also here would would not be acceptable. On 33 and 34, Burkina Faso wants to add protection for whistleblowers, experts, and witnesses. Russia, Canada, Mauritania, Nigeria support.. Finally, Yemen argues for applicability to trump scope restrictions > We are now discussing offenses that had to do with information, and if > they are serious, and they develop from day to day, and there are new > crimes that appear every day. And we are looking here at an expanding in > applicability, especially that the crimes referenced from six to 16 are not > are not all of the crimes in ICT. So therefore, we were for expanding the > applicability and the scope of application in procedural and content as > long as the purpose here is to promote cooperation in fighting cyber > crimes. So therefore, we believe that combating it, combating these crimes > would would include all crimes electronic or content, even at any level or > at the minimum level, as we say, and because we discover new crimes and > these crimes develop and they they reappear and therefore, if we were to > resolve the scope of applicability, --

1 0

Call for Contributions OA book on "AI Infrastructures and Sustainability"
by Anne Mollen 31 Jan '24

31 Jan '24

Hi all, We are inviting chapter proposals for an edited book as part of the ECREA Open Access Book Series <https://ecrea.eu/ECREA-Book-Series> on AI Infrastructures and Sustainability Editors: Anne Mollen, Sigrid Kannengießer, Fieke Jansen, Julia Velkova Amidst the hype around generative AI, critical approaches are demonstrating how technologies of automation foster forms of exploitation in relation to natural resources and the environment, labour and working conditions as well as social injustice. This edited volume seeks to contribute a comprehensive media and communication research perspective on the socio-ecological relations that emerge from practices of use and development of “AI”. We are looking for contributions that analyze the manifold social processes and related tensions that contribute towards manifesting AI infrastructures, with their underlying ideologies, power dynamics, forms of exploitation, extractivism, inequalities etc. Deadline: February 29, 2024 Further information can be found here <https://www.uni-muenster.de/Kowi/institut/arbeitsbereiche/call-for-contribu…>. Best Anne — Dr. Anne Mollen Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft Universität Münster Bispinghof 9-14 D-48143 Münster Tel.: +49 251 83-24259 anne.mollen(a)uni-muenster.de https://www.uni-muenster.de/Kowi/personen/Anne-Mollen.html

1 0

CFP 'Transforming Methods' Panel @ EASST/4S Amsterdam
by Guillaume Latzko-Toth 31 Jan '24

31 Jan '24

Dear fellow AoIRers, Apologies for another message related to the EASST/4S conference in Amsterdam. Thrilled to meet so many of you there! We are still seeking proposals for our open panel titled "Transforming Methods for Digital Research." Here is the short description: "Responding to the computational turn in social sciences, qualitative researchers have adapted, extended, and transformed their methods. The panel aims to map and consolidate these methodological innovations, contributing to an extended repertoire of qualitative and mixed methods for the digital age." Please follow the link to the submission page (https://nomadit.co.uk/conference/easst-4s2024/p/14435) to read a more detailed description of the topic. Note that it is a ‘combined format’ panel, which means that your proposal can take many forms, from a formal paper presentation to a hands-on demo or a contribution to a roundtable. In short, we welcome a variety of contribution formats and diverse perspectives. Please, make sure to be as specific as possible on what your contribution will be about and what form it would preferably take–we may have to ask you to change the format depending on the number of sessions we will be assigned by the conference organizers. In accordance with the conference guidelines (https://www.easst4s2024.net/callforabstracts/) a typical submission should include: - a title - the name/s and email address/es of author/s - a short abstract (max 300 characters) - a "long" abstract (max 250 words) As you know already, the deadline for submissions is February 12, 2024. Should you have any inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact us by replying to this email. We look forward to your contributions to this conversation on methods and hope to see you in Amsterdam. Guillaume Latzko-Toth, Laval University, Quebec City Florence Millerand, Université du Québec à Montréal Mélanie Millette, Université du Québec à Montréal David Myles, Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Montréal

1 0

Upcoming Deadline for Call for Proposals: The Ethics of Large-Scale Models
by Nicole McAlee 31 Jan '24

31 Jan '24

The deadline for this call for proposals is approximately two weeks away, on February 16, 2024. We hope you will consider applying. Thank you! Notre Dame-IBM Technology Ethics Lab 2023-2024 Call for Proposals The Ethics of Large-Scale Models ---------------------------------------- OVERVIEW ---------------------------------------- Large-scale models are drawing significant widespread public interest, driven by an increased focus on applications that leverage this technology, such as ChatGPT, LLaMa, DALL-E, or Midjourney. Large-scale models are artificial intelligence (AI) systems pre-trained on large datasets for general-purpose use, often adapted for a specific task using a fine-tuning process. Their adoption and impact are accelerating, driven by their potential in various contexts. With the increased adoption of large-scale models, multiple stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the ethical issues surrounding their design, development, and use. While these models raise many of the same high-level tech ethics concerns as other forms of AI, they drive specific concerns around their potential to spread inaccurate information, violate intellectual property rights, and create increased data privacy risks, to name a few. In addition, medium- to long-term impacts of using these technologies also have the potential for unexpected impacts in critical sectors, such as education and health. The Notre Dame-IBM Technology Ethics Lab, under the auspices of the Notre Dame Ethics Initiative, invites proposals for projects that grapple with these challenges, providing new insights or suggesting innovative solutions. Potential applications for study include industry (e.g., healthcare, financial services), artistic creation, sustainability, neurotechnologies, politics, emergency and disaster management, advertising, social media, smart cities, and others. Examples of areas for research and scholarship include, but are not limited to, the following: - Society, Community, and Culture - Inclusive stakeholder dialogue - Education - Future of work and upskilling - Community awareness and engagement - Impact to culture - Governance and Policy - Governance of organizations and systems - Informed and inclusive policy development - Guiding principles - Frameworks for adoption and decision-making - Interdisciplinary - Developing trustworthy systems - Design principles - Human-AI collaboration - Return on investment (ROI) - Other topics not described here Successful applications will propose a defined deliverable (e.g. research papers, draft policy, teaching materials, and impact assessments) that addresses the challenges described in the call to be completed between April 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024. ---------------------------------------- KEY DATES ---------------------------------------- 2023 - December 7 - Application period opens 2024 - February 16 - Application period closes - April 1 - Projects kick off - April - Virtual recipient workshop - October - Virtual recipient workshop - December 31 - Projects close and deliverables due 2025 - January - Tech Ethics Forum at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, USA ---------------------------------------- PROJECT AWARDS ---------------------------------------- Recipients may apply for up to $60,000 USD in award funding and will have from April 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024 to complete their project, including preparation, research, execution, and deliverables. A detailed budget and timeline should be submitted as part of the application. ---------------------------------------- TO APPLY ---------------------------------------- For full details of the call, including eligibility criteria, proposal preparation guidelines, and a link to the application form, please visit https://techethicslab.nd.edu/call-for-proposals/. Questions may be directed to techlab(a)nd.edu.

1 0

Online panel: Examining the role of platforms and AI in elections | 9 Feb 2024
by Orsolya Gulyás 31 Jan '24

31 Jan '24

Dear colleagues, The Centre for Digitalisation, Democracy and Innovation (CD2I) at the Brussels School of Governance is organising an online panel discussion about the role of platforms and AI in elections. Experts from various fields will discuss actions that platforms are undertaking, how online political campaigning is currently regulated in the EU, and how these measures interplay. Speakers will also place the upcoming European Parliament and national elections in the wider context of our saturated (dis)information environment and reflect on how platforms and politicians can maintain and restore trust with citizens. The panel discussion will take place on 9 February at 14.00 (CET) on Zoom, please register to receive the meeting link. Registration: https://brussels-school.be/output/events/winter-school-online-policy-panel-… Speakers: * Trisha Meyer, Director of the Centre for Digitalisation, Democracy and Innovation, Brussels School of Governance * Nicola Aitken, Meta, Lead, Stakeholder Engagement and Content Policy * Mattia Caniglia, Atlantic Council’s DFR Lab, Associate Director, Capacity Building * Mihalis Kritikos, European Commission, DG-RTD, Policy Analyst, Ethics and Integrity Sector Best wishes, ORSOLYA GULYÁS PhD Researcher orsolya.gulyas(a)vub.be<mailto:orsolya.gulyas@vub.be> Brussels School of Governance<https://brussels-school.be/> Pleinlaan 5 - 1050 Brussels

1 0

IVSA Xalapa, Mexico deadline extension
by MC Cambre 31 Jan '24

31 Jan '24

Dear all, We've had some portal glitches and many questions and have extended the submission possibilities until *February 9th *to make sure it works out for all. Apologies for any confusions! Please see the call for *Visual Accountability: "Show don't Tell"* June 26-29 here: https://visualsociology.org/?page_id=8614 Looking forward! -- *Dr. Carolina Cambre (she |her) Associate ProfessorConcordia University, Montréal * *Chercheuse associée à IRCAV-Paris 2020-2025https://www.carolinacambre.com/ <https://concordia.academia.edu/mariacarolinacambre>https://www.concordia.ca/artsci/education/faculty.html?fpid=carolina-cambre <https://www.concordia.ca/artsci/education/faculty.html?fpid=carolina-cambre>* *Concordia University is located on Kanien’kehá:ka territory.* *University of Alberta is located on Treaty 6 / Métis territory.*

1 0

OSoMe Awesome Speakers returns February 8th [full schedule included]
by Watkins, Caitlin 31 Jan '24

31 Jan '24

Happy New Year/Spring semester everyone (and my apologies if you see this message multiple times due to cross-posting)! We’re excited to announce that OSoMe Awesome Speakers will pick back up next week! As a reminder, the zoom link is different for all speakers so be sure to register for each event at osome.iu.edu/events/speaker-series<https://osome.iu.edu/events/speaker-series>. All talks will be at 12pm ET. This semester you can hear from: * February 8th – David Lazer, Northeastern University * February 29th – David Broniatowski, George Washington University * March 6th – David Rand, Massachusetts Institute of Technology * March 20th – Sandra González-Bailón, University of Pennsylvania * March 28th – Andrew Guess, Princeton University * April 4th – Kate Starbird, University of Washington We’re looking forward to another great series of talks and hope to see y’all there! Best, Caitlin Caitlin Watkins Executive Director Observatory on Social Media caiwatki(a)indiana.edu<mailto:caiwatki@indiana.edu>

1 0

STORYTELLERS + MACHINES 2024
by Dave Mee 31 Jan '24

31 Jan '24

May be of interest to some on the list, particularly theme 3. -- 2-4 July 2024, School of Digital Arts, Manchester Metropolitan University Following on from the series symposium in June 2023, Storytellers + Machines 2024 will be a two-day conference shaping debate on AI narrative, art and media at the School of Digital Arts (SODA) at Manchester Metropolitan University in the UK. Theme of the conference is “Controlling the Narrative: agency, interaction and influence in creative AI”. Storytellers+Machines 2024 is a transdisciplinary conference that champions the contributions of artists, creative practitioners and technologists, alongside other voices from academia, industry and cultural sectors in the lively and contested creative AI space. The open call for submissions to the conference is now open. >> Deadline: 15 February 2024. https://storytellersandmachines.xyz THIS YEAR’S THEME: CONTROLLING THE NARRATIVE: AGENCY, INTERACTION AND INFLUENCE IN GENERATIVE AI STORYTELLING AND ART The theme for this year’s conference asks presenters to submit 300-work proposals for papers, artworks and performances related to three overarching topics for discussion: * AGENCY * INTERACTION * INFLUENCE THEME 1: AGENCY AI generative systems are possibly the first tools depicted as having their own creative agency. Yet, the philosophical distinctions between creators and their tools, audiences and their media are often blurred. What kind of agency do audiences, authors and developers have when using generative and AI tools? Should we think in terms of control at all in these relationships and instead consider notions of collaboration, borderless synthesis of human and machine or something else? THEME 2: INTERACTION New forms of interaction and immersion for audiences are being invented through generative and AI controlled narratives, artworks and experiences. What are the emerging creative systems, aesthetics and relationships between audience and producers of these forms? THEME 3: INFLUENCE The influence that algorithmic systems exert on society, communities and identities, for example through algorithmic bias and corporate ownership, is increasingly well understood and documented in the media, academia and the software industry. What are the socio-cultural and economic implications of such these influences on artistic and creative media producers and their audiences? And are there emerging strategies and tools that can be used to avoid, mitigate or otherwise challenge types of harmful influence and bias, particularly as they pertain to our narratives and media? https://storytellersandmachines.xyz

1 0

Job advertisement - Postdoctoral Fellowship "Sonic-Social Genre? - Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics
by Christopher Haworth 31 Jan '24

31 Jan '24

The successful applicant for this postdoctoral fellowship will collaborate on a research project focused on new approaches to analyzing and modeling music genres. Located between informatics engineering, music information retrieval, musicology, and music anthropology and sociology, this interdisciplinary project addresses the lack of an adequate theory of genre in existing approaches to music genre recognition. See link for more information: https://www.aesthetics.mpg.de/karriere/jobs/postdoctoral-fellowship.html

1 2

"Wikipedia and/as Data" symposium 19 June 2024
by Heather Ford 30 Jan '24

30 Jan '24

|| CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS || Wikipedia and/as Data What is Wikipedia’s relationship to data? What should Wikipedia’s relationship to data be? 2024 wikihistories<https://wikihistories.net/> symposium co-located with ICA Gold Coast <https://www.icahdq.org/mpage/ica24> and brought to you by the wikihistories project <https://wikihistories.net/> at the University of Technology Sydney<https://www.uts.edu.au/> in partnership with the Centre for Media Transition<https://www.uts.edu.au/research/centre-media-transition>, the ARC Centre of Excellence in Automated Decision-Making and Society<https://www.admscentre.org.au/> (ADMS+) and Wikimedia Australia<https://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia> Date and time: Wed 19th June 2024, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm AEST (in person) Location: Queensland University of Technology (exact venue available soon) Deadline for submissions: 15 February Wikipedia has always been a critical source of data for computer science projects, offering data scientists a massive store of open data. Researchers and developers use Wikipedia to work on natural language processing (NLP) tasks and applications, model user interactions with content and other users, deliver factual statements to users in automated question-answering tasks, and find nearby features as represented by Wikipedia articles (Iliadis, 2022<https://www.wiley.com/en-ae/Semantic+Media:+Mapping+Meaning+on+the+Internet…>; Iliadis & Ford, 2023<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20563051231195546>). These practitioners use Wikipedia as a store of facts assuming that it expresses an established consensus as a result of its policies and processes. Yet, Wikipedia’s natural language could contain meanings that resist translation into data and whose classifications might be open to interpretation and critique (Ford & Iliadis, 2023<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20563051231195552>). For example, articles about complex topics such as Jerusalem<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem> do not easily align with standard ways of representing entities like cities. Jerusalem’s infobox<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Infobox> reflects Wikipedia’s power to make important decisions about how we understand facts and the meanings that are associated with them (Ford & Graham, 2016<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0263775816668857>). This power is intensified when entire Wikipedia articles are translated into structured datafied knowledge bases of machine-readable statements – by the Wikidata project, for example, which started in 2012 as a project of the Wikimedia Foundation (Ford, 2020<https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/4956/chapter/1879827/Rise-of-…>). How researchers measure Wikipedia’s sociocultural biases also depends on the datafication of Wikipedia’s content and how such processes may be questioned rather than taken for granted. Measuring the extent to which Wikipedia represents Australians, for example, could simply be achieved by counting articles that are categorised in the “Australians” data category, and yet this category itself is not an objective representation of Australianness but rather the result of particular practices that resist stable referents (Falk et al., 2023<https://wikihistories.github.io/reports/who-counts.html>). As Wikipedia’s content is increasingly used to power virtual assistants such as Amazon Alexa and more recently large language model applications like ChatGPT and Google’s Bard, Wikipedia participates in the global information ecosystem in ways that go well beyond its role as a web-based encyclopaedia (McDowell & Vetter, 2023<https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/20807/4453>). Thus, it is important to understand Wikipedia’s relationship to data, not as a given, but as something to be critically investigated. This symposium will gather together social scientists, humanists, critical technologists, and others to investigate Wikipedia’s connection to data and the importance of this relationship for the global information ecosystem and the production of knowledge. The workshop will be organised as a day-long, face-to-face event prior to the annual International Communication Association conference<https://www.icahdq.org/mpage/ica24> on the Gold Coast in Australia. Participants will be invited to share short presentations and to participate in discussions focused on the questions “What is Wikipedia’s relationship to data?” and/or “What should Wikipedia’s relationship to data be?” Participants will also agree to read a few background papers prior to the gathering. The workshop will result in a collaborative document that maps out possible areas for researching these questions from a sociotechnical lens and the option to continue the collaboration post-symposium. To participate, please complete the following web form<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf78yQus2mwGT2FOOfygisjfJwCJLjNIpd…>, including a 250-300 word abstract outlining your contribution to the symposium themes. Lead curator and contact: Heather Ford<https://profiles.uts.edu.au/Heather.Ford> Organisers: Francesco Bailo<https://www.sydney.edu.au/arts/about/our-people/academic-staff/francesco-ba…> Michael Davis<https://profiles.uts.edu.au/Michael.Davis> Michael Falk<https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/profile/1043380-michael-falk> Benjamin Mako Hill<https://com.uw.edu/people/faculty/benjamin-mako-hill/> Andrew Iliadis<https://andrewiliadis.com/> Tim Koskie<https://www.linkedin.com/in/timothy-koskie-74ba1718/?originalSubdomain=au> Amanda Lawrence<https://www.rmit.edu.au/contact/staff-contacts/academic-staff/l/lawrence-dr…> References Falk, M., Ford, H., Tall, K., & Pietsch, T. (2023). How Australians are represented in Wikipedia. Reports of the Wikihistories Project. University of Technology, Sydney. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10296217 Ford, H. (2020). Rise of the underdog. In J. Reagle & J. Koerner (Eds.), Wikipedia @ 20: Stories of an Incomplete revolution (pp. 189–201). MIT Press. Ford, H., & Graham, M. (2016). Provenance, power and place: Linked data and opaque digital geographies. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(6), 957-970. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816668857 Ford, H., & Iliadis, A. (2023). Wikidata as semantic infrastructure: Knowledge representation, data labor, and truth in a more-than-technical project. Social Media + Society, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231195552 Iliadis, A. (2022). Semantic media: Mapping meaning on the internet. Polity. Iliadis, A., & Ford, H. (2023). Fast facts: Platforms from personalization to centralization. Social Media + Society, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231195546 McDowell, Z. J., & Vetter, M. A. (2014). The re-alienation of the commons: Wikidata and the ethics of “free” data. International Journal of Communication, 18. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/20807 UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. Think. Green. Do. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

1 0