- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

seeking recommendations for auto transcription software/platform
by Jared M. Wright 25 Jan '21

25 Jan '21

Hello, Can anyone recommend a good automated transcription software/platform for Zoom recordings? Free/Open Source Software would be ideal, but I will use a paid service if necessary. I would hire some grad students but I currently don't have funds for this project. Thanks in advance! Best, Jared -- *Jared M. Wright, PhD* Sociology, Purdue University (August 2020) Blog <https://jaredmwr.wordpress.com/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/JaredMWr> | CV <https://purdue.academia.edu/JaredWright/CurriculumVitae> *Latest Publication*: Einwohner, Rachel L., Kaitlin Kelly-Thompson, Valeria Sinclair-Chapman, Fernando Tormos, S. Laurel Weldon, *Jared M. Wright*, and Charles Wu. 2019. "Active Solidarity: Intersectional Solidarity in Action." *Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society*, https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxz052 <https://academic.oup.com/sp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/sp/jxz052/…> . <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

6 5

Call for paper: Societal Impact of Science
by Ehsan Mohammadi 25 Jan '21

25 Jan '21

Hi All, "Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics" has launched a new Research Topic on "Measuring the Societal Impact of Science". The Research Topic aims to bring together perspectives of practitioners, technologists, publishers, and researchers on the challenges and opportunities associated with the influence of research on society, culture, and public policy in different contexts around the world. We invite manuscripts that address, but are not limited to the following themes: - The concept and debates around the societal impact of science - Tools and measures for impact of research on different aspects of society (i.e culture, policy, public services ) - Challenges and issues in measuring societal impact of science (gaming and manipulation) - New data sources for measuring societal impact of science - Public engagement in science - The importance of an appropriate science communication infrastructure for tracing impact and change - Role of social media metrics/altmetrics in science dissemination to the general public If you are interested in contributing to this research topic, please submit an extended abstract (Max. 1000 words) via the following link: https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/18193/measuring-the-societal-im…. On the page, click on ‘Submit your abstract’ and then make sure to choose section ‘Research Assessment’ to submit your work. The submission deadline for the abstracts is March 15, 2021. The abstracts will be reviewed by the topic editors and authors of the selected works will be contacted within 3 weeks. They will be then encouraged to submit their full papers by June 30, 2021. All articles are peer-reviewed and subject to article processing fees if accepted for publication. There are a number of ways that can help reduce costs: - Frontiers has an extensive fee support program - anyone who does not have the institutional means to pay for a publication (e.g. via the university, grant, etc.) can ask for a waiver by compiling an application form upon submission of their paper. - Frontiers is collaborating with 180+ institutional agreements and has 5 National Deals (Austria, Sweden, Norway, Qatar, and UK). If your institution is collaborating with Frontiers will have their institution covering full or partial costs. For more information and how to apply visit: https://www.frontiersin.org/about/publishing-fees Editors: - Fereshteh Didegah - Ehsan Mohammadi - Germana Barata Key Dates: - Abstract deadline: 15 March 2021 - Manuscript deadline: 30 June 2021 Visit the homepage of the Research Topic for a full description of the project: https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/18193 We look forward to your contributions to this issue. Best regards, Assistant Professor College of Information and Communications University of South Carolina Webpage: https://bit.ly/3bKLhTT G.S: https://tinyurl.com/s63gls8

1 0

WEBCAST TODAY – Zimbabwe: The Urgency of Multistakeholder Participation in Internet Governance during COVID and Beyond
by Joly MacFie 25 Jan '21

25 Jan '21

This is the most recent in the ongoing series of ISOC Zimbabwe Tech Talks, recordings of which can be found on their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/isoczim Panelist *Bonnie Mtengwa* is from POTRAZ, which is the ZImbabwe Postal & Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, who maintains the ZIGF secretariat. Panelist *Cade Zvavanjanja* is the chair of the Multi-Stakeholder Co-ordinating Team (MCT) ISOC Live posted: "Today Monday January 25 2021, at 3pm CAT (13:00 UTC) ISOC LIVE will webcast an Internet Society Zimbabwe Chapter (ISOC ZIM) Tech Talk - 'The Urgency of Multistakeholder Participation in Internet Governance during COVID and Beyond' that was held on Jan 12 " [image: livestream] <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/isoczim>Today *Monday January 25 2021*, at *4:30pm CAT* (14:30 UTC) *ISOC LIVE <https://isoc.live>* will webcast an *Internet Society Zimbabwe Chapter <https://isoc.org.zw/>* (ISOC ZIM) Tech Talk - '*The Urgency of Multistakeholder Participation in Internet Governance during COVID and Beyond*' that was held on Jan 12 2021. *SPEAKERS* *Cade Zvavanjanja*, Director, Cyber Security & Forensics, Baker Tilly Central Africa *Bonnie Mtengwa*, IT Manager, POTRAZ *Ntokozo Ncube*, ICT Manager, Solusi University *Shepard Chifamba*, Lecturer, Harare Institute of Technology *MODERATOR -* *Jasper Mangwana*, President, ISOC Zimbabwe *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/isoczim <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/isoczim> (open captions)* *TWITTER #InternetGovernance @mangwana_jasper @ISOCZIM <https://bit.ly/isoczim> @Wisecade @zigfonline @BonnieM6 @Potraz_zw Ntokozo Ncube @SolusiUni Shepard Chifamba @HarareInstitute* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ <https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/>* *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive <https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive>* *https://www.facebook.com/ISOCAfrica/live <https://www.facebook.com/ISOCAfrica/live>* *https://www.facebook.com/isoczim <https://www.facebook.com/isoczim>* *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/isoczim <https://archive.org/details/isoczim>* -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 0

CfP - 9th Annual conference on comparative media studies (CMSTW'2021), April 20-21, 2021
by Svetlana S. Bodrunova 25 Jan '21

25 Jan '21

----Apologies for potential cross-posting---- Dear colleagues, sorry for this short notice - please see below the call for papers for the 9th CMSTW'2021 which may be of interest to some of you. CALL FOR PAPERS Time: April 20–21, 2021 Place: St. Petersburg, Russia – VIRTUAL Working language: English Theme for 2021: Communication Architectures Recently, scholars have proclaimed the rise of the platform society (Van Dijck, Poell, & De Waal, 2018). In it, affordances decide what message the medium is; algorithmic intermediaries, commercial corporations, and influencer bloggers compete in bypassing news agencies; and platforms impeach politicians. A myriad ways of simultaneous communication, both individual- and mass-oriented, creates extreme connectivity which may lead to extreme power – and may not lead to meaningful conclusions. Yet, despite this seeming communication singularity where everything happens in parallel, a range of works emphasize the return of structure into communication – or even a new era of hierarchization. Structurally, what are we facing? Is there horizontal co-existence of communication platforms, a multi-level complex of arenas, or a brave new world of (re-)emergent hierarchies? However, proliferation of platforms, whether horizontal or hierarchical, is only the surface of transformation. We need to re-assess not only the elemental complexity of the communication world. It is the fundamental formulas of communication acts, the metaphor of communication flow, the fabric of micro- and macro-deliberation that demand rethinking. And, crucial as never before, the person-level, societal, and global roles of communication architectures – and architects – need to be tied together when envisioned in academe and policing. CMSTW’2021 is dedicated to assessing communication architectures on all levels in comparative perspective – from message itself to global information infrastructure, as well as to linking structural and platform features of media and public spheres to policing, knowledge of social inequalities, and theory of human communication. The four traditional tracks of the conference will re-conceptualize the ‘platform society’ (Theory), question the pluses and highlight the minuses of ‘architectured’ communication (Political & Social), put journalism and media into comparative platform perspective (Media Industry & Journalism), and develop approaches to detection of communicative structures (Methods). CONFERENCE TRACKS THEORY Chair: Silvio Waisbord, George Washington University, USA POLITICAL AND SOCIAL Chairs: Svetlana Bodrunova, St.Petersburg State University, Russia Anna Litvinenko, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany MEDIA INDUSTRY AND JOURNALISM Chair: Katrin Voltmer, University of Leeds (Emeritus), UK METHODS Chair: Olessia Koltsova, National Research University – Higher School of Economics, Russia KEYNOTE SPEAKERS Noshir Contractor, Northwestern University, the USA Jane S. & William J. White Professor of Behavioral Sciences, Director of the Science of Networks in Communities (SONIC) Research Group at Northwestern University; ICA President-Elect-Select for 2021–2022. Barbie Zelizer, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, the USA Raymond Williams Professor of Communication, Associate Dean for Research, and Director, Center for Media at Risk, at the University of Pennsylvania; ICA President (2009–2010). Two more keynote speakers TBC Invited panelists and discussants to be announced before February 15, 2021 ABOUT THE CONFERENCE Since 2013, CMSTW has been gathering experts in a wide range of topics within comparative media research. Our keynotes have been Larry Grross, Silvio Waisbord, Zizi Papacharissi, Jean Burgess, Paolo Mancini, Katrin Voltmer, Nico Carpentier, Mark Deuze, and many other notable scholars. In 2021, the conference will include a plenary podium discussion, keynote speeches, panels, round tables, book presentations, and a range of workshops (subject to submissions). Due to the restrictions on flights and social gatherings caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the conference has moved to virtual space; CMSTW’2020 was also virtual and had great success, with over 300 speakers and listeners from 20 countries. To substitute our usual cultural program, virtual tours and get-together events will be organized. FORMS OF PARTICIPATION Individual submissions Full papers: 9 to 15 pages, anonymized Short papers: 5 to 8 pages, anonymized Abstracts: up to 300 words, anonymized Group submissions Panel submissions: a 300-word panel rationale plus 3 to 5 abstracts of max 150 words, free form (pdf), anonymized. Full and short papers may be submitted as parts of the panels; however, panels may also be accepted without full paper submission. Workshops: a 2-to-4-page workshop rationale, de-anonymized All submissions must be uploaded via the conference EasyChair account (will be available starting from February 1, 2021; please see the address on the conference website cmstw2021.org) VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE CONFERENCE CMSTW’2021 will be organized via Microsoft Teams and Zoom; leisure events may take place at other platforms. PUBLISHING OPPORTUNITIES AND AWARDS - 'Digital Journalism' (Scopus Q1) publishing opportunity; - Special issue at 'Future Internet' (MDPI, Scopus Q2), with 15% discount; - Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Prize for the best paper in the social&political track; - Katrin Voltmer’s prize for the best PhD student paper. DEADLINES AND OTHER DATES March 1, 2021 – main submission deadline (subject to slight extension on request) March 15-18, 2021 – notifications of acceptance March 20, 2021 – early-bird registration deadline April 1, 2021 – regular registration deadline June 1, 2021 – camera-ready papers deadline PARTICIPATION FEES Due to COVID-19 and the virtual state of the conference, the fees have been significantly reduced: Presenter: early-bird – 20 euro, regular – 25 euro PhD/Master student: 10 euro Group submission: early-bird – 70 euro, regular – 80 euro CONTACTS Conference address: cmstw2021.org (active from January 27, 2021) Conference email for CMSTW'2020 and CMSTW'2021: cmstw2020(a)spbu.ru See you (virtually) in St.Petersburg! -- Svetlana S. Bodrunova, Prof., D.Polit.Sci. Head, Center for International Media Research School of Journalism and Mass Communications, St.Petersburg State University +7 921 933 02 14 s.bodrunova(a)spbu.ru, spasibo-tebe(a)yandex.ru

1 0

Critical and Social Justice Approaches to Social Media and/or Public Relations Assistant/Associate position at York University
by Ganaele Langlois 25 Jan '21

25 Jan '21

Dear Colleagues, The Department of Communication Studies at York University is expanding. We are looking for an Assistant/Associate Professor in Critical and Social Justice Approach to Social Media and/or PR. More information here: http://webapps.yorku.ca/academichiringviewer/viewposition.jsp?positionnumbe… Best, Ganaele -- Ganaele Langlois Associate Professor Department of Communication Studies York University

1 0

Graham Murdock: Public Service Media in Challenging Times: Connectivity, Climate and Corona. Online-talk, Feb 15
by Christian Fuchs 25 Jan '21

25 Jan '21

Public Service Media in Challenging Times: Connectivity, Climate and Corona. A talk by Graham Murdock hosted and organised by InnoPSM: AHRC Research Network on Innovation in Public Service Media Policies (https://innopsm.net/) and its event- and work-stream on Envisioning Public Service Media Utopias Date: Monday, 15 February 2021 Time: 16:00-18:00 (British Time) Where? Zoom (you will receive a Zoom link plus access data at latest one day before the event per e-mail) Registration via Eventbrite: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/public-service-media-in-challenging-times-co… In this talk, Prof Graham Murdock will analyse public service media in the challenging times we live in. The institutions and animating ideals of public service broadcasting have been under continuous pressure for the last four decades. Advocates of marketisation have argued long and hard that they are no longer relevant or needed in a world of digital abundance and infinite choice, pointing to the increasing migration of young people to on-line platforms. These arguments continue to gain traction. A new proposal for an alternative future must place relations between broadcasting and the internet at the centre of argument. Discussions around how these relations might be organised has been underway for some time but recent developments have invested them with new relevance and urgency. 2020 was marked by a global pandemic, an accelerating climate crisis, and an explosion of direct action across the political spectrum. The processes driving these events are still unfolding presenting Public Service Media with both new challenges and new opportunities. The talk will open a conversation of how we might respond. About our speaker: Graham Murdock is Emeritus Professor of Culture and Economy at Loughborough University. He has written extensively on the political economy of broadcasting, the idea of a digital commons, and on the politics of risk, most recently in relation to the climate emergency. He has held visiting professorships at the Universities of Auckland, California at San Diego, Mexico City, Curtin, Bergen, the Free University of Brussels, and Stockholm and taught widely across China. His work has been translated into 21 languages. Respondents: Alessandro d’Arma, University of Westminster; Minna Aslama Horowitz, University of Helsinki; Klaus Unterberger, Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF) Public Value; Christian Fuchs, University of Westminster

1 0

ACM UMAP 2021: Call for Demo and LBR Papers
by Oana Inel 25 Jan '21

25 Jan '21

— Apologies for cross-posting — ACM UMAP 2021: Call for Demo and LBR Papers Important Dates • Submission of demos and LBR papers: March 26, 2021 • Notification of acceptance: April 19, 2021 • Camera-ready versions of accepted papers: May 7, 2021 • Conference: June 21-25, 2021 Note: The submissions times are 11:59 pm AoE time (Anywhere on Earth) ACM UMAP 2021 – User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization is the premier international conference for researchers and practitioners working on systems that adapt to individual users, to groups of users, and that collect, represent, and model user information. ACM UMAP 2021 invites Demonstrations and Late-Breaking Results (LBR) papers of innovative UMAP-based systems (including research prototypes). You are encouraged to submit your Demo or LBR by March 26th, 2021. Submission formats For more details, see below! Demonstrations • Max. 3 pages + max. 1 additional page for references • (Required) unpublished page describing how they would present the demo virtually and/or in person • (Optional) video or external material demonstrating the system • Publication in ACM UMAP 2021 Adjunct Proceedings • Presentation as a (potentially virtual) demo + poster at the conference Late-Breaking Results • Max. 7 pages + max. 2 additional pages for references • (NEW: required) unpublished page with a list of questions the authors aim to get feedback on • Publication in ACM UMAP 2021 Adjunct Proceedings • Presentation as a (potentially virtual) poster at the conference Submission via https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=acmumap2021 Demonstrations Demonstrations will showcase research prototypes and commercially available products in a dedicated session. Demo submissions must be based on an implemented and tested system that pursues one or more innovative ideas in the interest areas of the conference. Demonstrations are an excellent and exciting way to showcase implementations and to get valuable feedback from the community. Each demo submission must make clear which aspects of the system will be demonstrated, and how these will be demonstrated on-site as well as online. To better identify the value of demos, we also encourage authors to submit a pointer to a screencast (max. 5 minutes on Vimeo or YouTube) or any external material related to the demo (e.g., shared code on GitHub). Descriptions of demonstrations should have a length of max. 3 pages + 1 page of references in the new ACM single-column style. On an extra page (not to be published), submissions should include a specification of the technical requirements for demonstrating the system at UMAP 2021. Given uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, this extra page should also describe if/how the demo can be presented in a virtual setting (e.g. with a video or a live link to the system). Late-Breaking Results Late-Breaking Results (LBR) are research-in-progress that must contain original and unpublished accounts of innovative research ideas, preliminary results, industry showcases, and system prototypes, addressing both the theory and practice of User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. In addition, papers introducing recently started research projects or summarizing project results are welcome as well. We encourage researchers and practitioners to submit a late-breaking work as it provides a unique opportunity for sharing valuable ideas, eliciting useful feedback on early-stage work, and fostering discussions and collaborations among colleagues. Late-Breaking Results papers have a length of up to 7 pages + 2 pages of references in the new ACM single-column style and will be presented to the conference as (in-person and virtual) posters. On an extra page (not to be published), submissions should include a list of questions that the authors aim to get feedback on during the poster session at UMAP 2021. Submission and Review Process Papers will be reviewed single-blind and do not need to be anonymized before submission. Papers (demo and LBR) must be formatted according to the new workflow for ACM publications. The templates and instructions are available here: https://www.acm.org/publications/taps/word-template-workflow. Authors should submit their papers as single-column. The templates are available here (we strongly recommend the usage of LaTeX for the camera-ready papers to minimize the extent of reformatting): • LaTeX (use \documentclass[manuscript,review,anonymous]{acmart} in the sample-authordraft.tex file for single-column): https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/publications/consolidated-tex-t… • Overleaf (use \documentclass[manuscript,review,anonymous]{acmart} for single-column): https://www.overleaf.com/latex/templates/acm-conference-proceedings-master-… • MS Word: https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/publications/taps/acm_submissio… Note: Accepted papers will require a further revision to meet the requirements and page limits of the camera-ready format required by ACM. Instructions for the preparation of the camera-ready versions of the papers will be provided after acceptance. Submit your papers in PDF format via EasyChair for ACM UMAP 2021 Demos and Late-Breaking Results at https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=acmumap2021 (choose “New Submission” and make sure to select “UMAP 2021 Demo and LBR”). The review process will be single-blind, i.e. authors’ names should be included in the papers. Submissions will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. They will be assessed based on their originality and novelty, potential contribution to the research field, potential impact in particular use cases, and the usefulness of presented experiences, as well as their overall readability. Papers that exceed the page limits or do not adhere to the formatting guidelines will be returned without review. Publication and Presentation Accepted Demo and Late-Breaking Results papers will be published in the ACM UMAP 2021 Adjunct Proceedings in the ACM Digital Library. All categories will be presented at the poster reception of the conference, in the form of a poster and/or a software demonstration following poster format. This form of presentation will provide presenters with an opportunity to obtain direct feedback about their work from a wide audience during the conference. Due to the uncertainties regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, the poster session may be partially or fully virtual. At least one author of each accepted paper must register for the conference and present the paper there. Late-Breaking Results and Demo Chairs • Bart Knijnenburg, Clemson University, South Carolina, USA • Eva Zangerle, Universität Innsbruck, Austria— Apologies for cross-posting —

1 0

ACM UMAP 2021: Call for Doctoral Consortium
by Oana Inel 25 Jan '21

25 Jan '21

— Apologies for cross-posting — ACM UMAP 2021: Call for Doctoral Consortium Important Dates • Paper Submission: March 9, 2021 • Notification to authors: March 31, 2021 • Camera ready submission: April 11, 2021 • ACM UMAP 2021 conference: June 21-25, 2021 • ACM UMAP 2021 DC Session: TBD, 2021 Note: The submissions times are 11:59 PM AoE time (Anywhere on Earth) ACM UMAP 2021 is the premier international conference on systems that adapt to users and user models for adaptation. It includes a Doctoral Consortium (DC) Session. The DC provides an opportunity for doctoral students to explore and develop their research interests under the guidance of distinguished researchers from the field. Doctoral students are invited to apply to present their research to experienced scholars who will provide constructive feedback and advice. Students are expected to document in a brief submission their doctoral research (see below described submission information for further details), which will be evaluated by the consortium committee. Good quality applications will be selected for presentation at a Doctoral Consortium Session as part of the conference. Promising, but less well- developed applications will be selected for presentation at a poster session. Each student with an accepted submission will be assigned a mentor who will provide feedback on the student’s work and will discuss the doctoral research with the student and the audience at the consortium. How to Submit to the Doctoral Consortium To apply for the ACM UMAP 2021 doctoral consortium, students should submit a paper presenting their doctoral research organized under the following headings: • Research Problem. The problem being addressed and a motivation outlining the relevance of the problem; • Related Work. Work already performed by other researchers related to this problem. This should situate your work, showing your knowledge of the relevant previous work and how your work will make a new contribution; • Research Questions and Proposed Approach. The main questions the PhD project aims to answer, contributions it aims to achieve, and the thesis methodology; • Progress to Date and Future Work. The progress made to date (including a clear description of the approach, methodology and preliminary results) as well as the plan for further research. Topics include (but are not limited to) the ACM UMAP 2021 key areas. Each DC submission should cover: identification of related (state of the art) work, indication of the potential innovation, application or advancement of the state-of-the-art that the work intends to achieve. In addition, as appropriate for the PhD project, each submission may cover: indication of data to be used for experimentation, indication of implementation approach, indication of evaluation criteria and experimental design. Each DC paper submission should be accompanied by a cover page that states: the paper title, name of the PhD candidate, the name of his/her supervisor(s) and University, a paragraph describing the stage they are in the PhD programme, together with a brief description of their background. This will enable the committee to adapt its assistance to each student. The DC will be most useful to students who have completed enough of their thesis work to have a solid foundation with a clear topic and literature review but the student should be early enough in their studies to still benefit from guidance and advice. Papers should be submitted via the EasyChair submission system https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=acmumap2021 by selecting the “UMAP 2021 Doctoral Consortium” track. Papers will be reviewed single-blind and do not need to be anonymized before submission. Submissions should be a single pdf document consisting of 1 cover page and the paper (up to 7 pages long + references) in the new ACM single-column style. Papers must be formatted according to the new workflow for ACM publications. The templates and instructions are available here: https://www.acm.org/publications/taps/word-template-workflow . Authors should submit their papers as single-column. The templates are available here (we strongly recommend the usage of LaTeX for the camera-ready papers to minimize the extent of reformatting): • LaTeX (use \documentclass[manuscript,review,anonymous]{acmart} in the sample-authordraft.tex file for single-column): https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/publications/consolidated-tex-t… • Overleaf (use\documentclass[manuscript,review,anonymous]{acmart} for single-column): https://www.overleaf.com/latex/templates/acm-conference-proceedings-master-… • MS Word: https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/publications/taps/acm_submissio… NB: Accepted papers will require a further revision in order to meet the requirements and page limits of the camera-ready format required by ACM. Instructions for the preparation of the camera-ready versions of the papers will be provided after acceptance. ACM UMAP Proceedings The accepted ACM UMAP 2021 Doctoral Consortium papers will be included in the Conference Proceedings, which will be published by ACM and that will be available via the ACM Digital Library. The main author (doctoral student) must register for the conference and present the paper for the paper to be included in the proceedings. Financial Support ACM UMAP has a history of supporting students to attend. Authors of submissions to the DC will have higher priority for UMAP grant applications. Doctoral Consortium Chairs • Noemi Mauro, University of Torino, Italy • Stephan Weibelzahl, PFH Private University of Applied Sciences Göttingen, Germany email: umap2021-dc AT um.org<http://um.org>

1 0

Call for submissions: Digital Activism in and Outside the Classroom
by iskandar zulkarnain 25 Jan '21

25 Jan '21

*Call for Submissions* The Global Digital Humanities Working Group in the Central New York Humanities Corridor seeks graduate students and recent Ph.Ds to participate in a work-in-progress workshop on the theme “Digital Activism in and Outside the Classroom,” to be hosted virtually by the University of Rochester on April 2, 2021. Selected participants will receive a $500 cash support from the working group. Funding is generously provided by the CNY Humanities Corridor through an award by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. We welcome papers that address the theme “Digital Activism in and Outside the Classroom.” Papers can address any aspect of digital media that intersects with social and environmental justice activism, both historically and in the present. We envision submissions that critically examine topics such as, but not limited to: ● Social media activism, hashtag activism, and intersectionality ● Global tactical media movement ● Anti-surveillance activism and/or sousveillance ● Data activism, data feminism, and ethical Big Data ● E-waste activism ● Platform activism ● Activist pedagogy in classroom settings ● TikTok as a medium for contemporary activism ● Digital activism as a voice for underrepresented communities ● Digital “artivism” Selected papers will receive feedback from peers and faculty members from our partner schools including the University of Rochester, Syracuse University, Hamilton College, Hobart and William Smith Colleges. The workshop consists of two parts. *Part I *will take place asynchronously on Perusall from *March 15th to March 30th*. Each selected participant is expected to provide feedback to other selected papers. *Part II* will take place synchronously for two hours on *April 2nd* over Zoom, with a public audience. *Submission: * To participate, please send an abstract (300-400 words) and a short bio (100 words) to digital.activism.21(a)gmail.com before *Feb. 15th*. The organizing committee will announce selected papers by *Feb. 26th.* Selected participants are expected to turn in a work-in-progress paper (no more than 5000 words) by *March 15th.* *Eligibility: * Current students or recent Ph.D. graduates (no earlier than September 2017) in any humanities or social sciences discipline. International submissions will be considered. All submissions must be in English. Participants who are currently enrolled or employed by a member institution of the Central New York Humanities Corridor (including Syracuse University, Cornell University, University of Rochester, Colgate University, Hamilton College, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Skidmore College, St. Lawrence College, Union College, Le Moyne College, and Rochester Institute of Technology) are welcome to submit. However, due to funding restrictions, you are ineligible for the $500 financial support. Participants who graduated from a CNY Humanities Corridor member institutions in the past three years but are no longer affiliated with the CNY Humanities Corridor are eligible for this financial support. -- Iskandar Zulkarnain, Ph.D. Visiting Assistant Professor of Media and Society Hobart and William Smith Colleges 300 Pulteney Street Geneva, NY 14456 Personal website: http://digitalperipheries.net/ Rochester Intermedia Studies Group "Ilmu itu untuk dibagi, bukan untuk dimiliki!"

1 0

Re: [Air-L] Privacy online: chilling effects and subjective experiences
by Jannie Møller Hartley 24 Jan '21

24 Jan '21

Hi Jill, This recently published article in medieKultur on everyday coping tactics have some parts relevant to what you are asking. https://tidsskrift.dk/mediekultur/article/view/121182 The AM-Life research group at Roskilde University have a few more articles on the way on these subjective experiences of everyday use of datafied platforms and technologies. We can send you drafts if you are interested. Some of Pink et al's work on anxieties is also related to both privacy and chilling effects. Also, Moe and Ytre-Arne's article on 'Folk theories of algorithm's might be good to look at as well. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0163443720972314 Have a good day! Jannie Møller Hartley | Lektor, Ph.d. Journalist | Journalistik | IKH | Roskilde Universitet Associate Professor, Ph.D. | PI of Velux-funded project DATAPUBLICS <https://ruc.dk/forskningsprojekt/datapublics-transforming-journalism-and-au…> | Vice-head of the interdisciplinary Centre for Big data CeBiDa <https://ruc.dk/en/forskningscenter/centre-big-data> | Department of Communication and Arts | Roskilde University 42.2.15 | Box 260 | 4000 Roskilde | Denmark Phone: (+45) 46 74 37 53Email: jath(a)ruc.dk New articles/chapters out: Medborgerskab i den digitale hverdag: Narrativer om nyhedsengagement blandt danske nyhedsbrugere, Digitale Liv, Samfundslitteratur, 2019, // Activist-journalism and the Norm of Objectivity: Role Performance in the Reporting of the #MeToo Movement in Denmark and Sweden <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2020.1805792>, Journalism Practice 2020 On 18/01/2021, 13.28, "Air-L on behalf of Jill Madeleine Walker Rettberg" <air-l-bounces(a)listserv.aoir.org on behalf of Jill.Walker.Rettberg(a)uib.no> wrote: Dear colleagues, I’m a member of the Norwegian Personvernskommisjon, a government-appointed committee writing a report on privacy that will provide politicians and others with an overview, analysis of practices today and policy recommendations. Most of the committee are in law, and I want to bring in other perspectives. I was asked to find research on “the chilling effect” and privacy, and found lots of interesting research, a lot of which is very relevant to AoIR – so I thought this would be a great place to ask for input and ideas. Below you’ll find an algorithmically translated version of my initial lit review (please excuse the slightly weird language as it was originally written in Norwegian – if you read Norwegian, the original is here: http://jilltxt.net/?p=4951) My informal summary is at the start, and you can scroll down for an annotated bibliography of what I have found so far. Now I’ve been asked to find more research on subjective experiences of privacy/lack of privacy online. I’d love suggestions as to what I should be looking at here, as well as any suggestions for other angles to consider. Jill Summary of research on the chilling effect and privacy Jill Walker Rettberg, 15.01.2021 The chilling effect occurs "in situations where the exercise of legitimate actions is curtailed or counteracted by the threat of possible sanctions"(NOU2016:19: Security Interaction).<https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2016-19/id2515424/?ch=3> It is very difficult to obtain secure knowledge or quantify the relationships between monitoring, profiling and any chilling effect. As the Norwegian Data Protection Authority writes in the chapter on the chilling effect of the Data Protection Survey 2019/2020: "It is generally easier to measure active actions than the absence of actions." Surveys don't always provide information about what people actually do, and it's hard to research empirically on this. A key finding in several studies is that our awareness of state and commercial monitoring of the web not only leads to a chilling effect on our utterances but also that we limit our behavior (Büchi et.al. 2020 and a number of others). Law professor Paul Bernal argues that data collection and surveillance on the internet threatens not only an individual right to privacy but also a collective need for security that includes human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and anti-discrimination prohibition (Bernal 2016). (Bernal's new book What Do We Know And What Should We Do About Internet Privacy (Sage, 2020) seems very relevant). Our behavior is probably affected even if we understand how profiles are used (Büchi et.al 2020, p 7). Automated manipulation of individuals' behavior harms the individual's autonomy (Büchi 2020 p. 7, and Büchi et al quotes two others). There are relatively few empirical studies of the chilling effect in digital media, but there are two that are often cited. Penney (2017) found that visitor numbers of Wikipedia articles on terrorism declined markedly after Snowdon's disclosures in 2013,arguing that this shows a clear chilling effect: people avoid seeking out information because they know they are being monitored (see figure from Penney 2017, p. 158). Another survey (Marthews & Tucker 2017) started by showing informants a list of keywords that contained words on the Dept of Homeland Security's alert list ("Anthrax," "agriculture," "attack"), words that were embarrassing in different ways ("erectile dysfunction" and "My Little Pony") and some very common words. Then they asked the informants which of these keywords they would be embarrassed that friends and family saw, what words they thought might get them in trouble with the authorities etc. The researchers then used Google Trends to see whether the search terms the informants found were "sensitive" had been less searched after the Snowdon revelations. It turned out that across 41 countries during this period there was a 4% decrease in searches in terms that the informants had said could cause them problems with the authorities. It surprised the researchers that they found a connection, but they found no other causal explanations other than that there was a chilling effect as a consequence of Snowdon's disclosures about government surveillance. Another study finds that informants who have been exposed to surveillance information say they are less likely to engage in online political activities (Stoycheff et.al 2019). Büchi et.al. 2020 has several examples. It is even more difficult to detect or debunk a chilling effect of algorithmic profiling because it is so diffuse. Algorithmic profiling circumvents privacy regulations by using statistical inferens rather than tangible personal data. This means that the GDPR can be completely circumvented because identification of the individual is no longer required for profiling (Büchi et.al. 2020 p.m. 8). Stoilova et. al. (2019) finds in a review of research into children's privacy practices that the research mostly looks at data that is shared deliberately, and not on metadata and other data traces, which is what is used foralgorithmic profiling. This is a new development we at the Privacy Commission should think something about! Is it a privacy violation that Google has paid MasterCard millions of dollars to see if online advertising on Google leads to purchases in physical stores? This happens according to them without using personally identifiable information (Büchi et.al. 2020, p. 5; media case from Bloomberg 2018<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/google-and-mastercard-cu…>). Our "digital footprint" can be a source of increased discrimination and "digital inequality"(Micheli et.al. 2018). Custom advertising can be discriminatory - The United States accused Facebook in 2019 of violating the U.S. Fair Housing Act by selling custom advertising that differed on the basis of race. According to Jon Wessel-Aas,source protection is"far illusory"when communication takes place electronically (2014, p 57), both due to Norwegian regulation and even more when communicating across borders. Here, Anders Brenna's book Digital Source Protection (2012) may be relevant, butI haven't read it, and it's been a while since 2012. Search for "reporter's privilege"|" source protection" + "chilling effect" + "privacy" on Google Scholar provides the most legal articles that do not seem to be particularly relevant to privacy,with the exception of Bradshaw 2017 which found that British journalists did not have good information security for digital source protection, despite a lot of information about surveillance. A related topic is the privacy paradox: why do we voluntarily give personal data to apps when we say we dislike it so strongly? New research largely rejects that there is some paradox - there are several logical explanations (Kokolakis 2017). The term "privacy paradox" was first used in 2001, in a study in which consumers who shopped online expressed concern about privacy but were still willing to give up personal data to online stores if they received anything in return (Brown 2001). In 2004, Acquisti suggests, from a behavioral economic perspective, that "[p]eople may not be able to act as economically rational agents when it comes to personal privacy." The privacy paradox is challenged by research into the chilling effect: Penney (2017) arguesthat we limit our behavior because we know that certain actions will create personal data about us collected by state or commercial actors. So when we agree to give up personal data to apps, etc. we also change behavior so that the data we give away becomes less inflamed. So there's no paradox. (Penney 2017; Büchi et.al. Penney 2017 is an in-depth research overview of the privacy paradox. Another research study (Baruh et.al 2017) looked at 166 research studies from 34 countries and found that privacy concerns do not predict the use of social media, but that those who are more concerned about privacy use e-commerce and digital public services less than those who are not concerned about privacy, and that they share less information and are more likely to use "protective privacy measures." Another response to the experience of having to give up personal data against their will is privacy lies,which Sannon et.al. (2018) defines as "the deliberate provision of false personal information to protect ase facet of an individual's privacy". Half of American teens have provided false information on social media profiles- and40% of internet users report lying to commercial websites. I also investigated a little around doxing and this that ordinary people can get personal information about themselves spread as an act of revenge after they have spoken out publicly or on social media. It's a slightly different matter, but my gut says they're connected. In particular, female journalists and women who have spoken out have received threats online, and doxing, i.e. that personal information about address and family etc is made public, is a well-known strategy that, together with "regular" netizens, definitely has a chilling effect on the utterances of women and minorities. For other uses, see Wikipedia (disambitation)<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing#Hit_lists_of_abortion_providers> This also happens to well-meaning (?) activists who try to "help" police identify protesters from photos and videos (e.g. here from the storming of Captiol 06.02.2021<https://mobile.twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1348453055663116290>) or as shown in artist Joana Moll's project The Virtual Watchers<http://www.virtualwatchers.de> (2016) which is based on an actual Facebook group where people "help" immigration police in the United States identify illegal immigrants from surveillance cameras. I didn't find research that looked at doxing or that amateurs are looking for personal information about others from a privacy perspective. Doxing is seen as part of online privacy and to a lesser extent discussed in relation to privacy. Netthets, on the other hand, is associated with the chilling effect and freedom of expression in that it is often alleged that laws against cyberharassment will have a "chilling effect" on freedom of speech, but Penney (2020) argues that such laws will allow minorities and especially women to be able to speak freer. Another adjoining field is digital sexual offenses (revenge porn), i.e. the proliferation of private nude photos without consent. Patella-Rey (2018) argues that the proliferation of nude photos without consent is not about privacy ,but about the protection of the body itself, i.e. that it is perceived as a violation of bodily integrity, and much worse than just the dissemination of information about thebody/person. It is interesting to think about where the boundary between body and data goes - what is personal data and what is simply person? Among homosexuals, participation on dating apps like Grindr increases the risk of spreading nude photos without consent - such dating apps have "powerful norms of disclosure that make sharing personal information all but required" (Waldman 2019). Research overviews and meta-analyses The following articles provide systematic summaries of research on specific topics: Büchi, Moritz, Eduard Fosch-Villaronga, Christoph Lutz, Aurelia Tamò-Larrieux, Shruthi Velidi, and Salome Viljoen. "The Chilling Effects of Algorithmic Profiling: Mapping the Issues." Computer Law & Security Review 36 (April 2020): 105367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105367.<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105367> A literature overview of research on profiling and on the chilling effect and how they are connected. States that profiling can lead to people changing behavior - it's not just about freedom of speech, behavior. The chilling effect involves avoiding behavior, which is what this article focuses on. Profiling can also make people add up to specific behaviors (making sure to get 10,000 steps because they know the insurance company or employer is paying attention - this is my example not from the article). Very much interesting in this article, recommended reading. Nb: one of the authors, Christoph Lutz, is Swiss but has been an associate professor at BI in Oslo since 2018. Kokolakis, Spyros. "Privacy Attitudes and Privacy Behaviour: A Review of Current Research on the Privacy Phenomenon Paradox." Computers & Security 64 (January 2017): 122-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002.<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002> This study is very much cited. It provides an overview of research in Scopus with the keywords "privacy paradox", but not legal and ethical research, as well as relevant articles cited by the first articles. A total of 51 articles. The article has practical overview tables that show research that confirms and denies the privacy paradox. The conclusion is that research on the privacy paradox has very contradictory findings. This is due to 1) Interpretation (is €7 to sell their personal data cheaply or does it show that we actually put a value on them? What does it mean that consumers already know that their personal data is poorly protected?). 2) Context: difference between people's attitude privacy in e-commerce and in educational context, e.g. Dangerous to transfer results from one sphere to another. Different types of personal data also cannot be easily compared. 3) Research methods: A survey survey is, for example, unsuitable for finding out anything about actual behaviour, nor to collect information about trades we undertake relatively rarely (e.g. security settings) because we remember too poorly. Experiments are often in generalisable. Five research fields that contribute to research into the privacy paradox today: 1) privacy calculus theory: we are rational agents who calculate the relationship between the supposed loss of privacy and the benefits we get for it. 2) Social theoretical interpretations: social communities very important for people, social representations (common understandings) of privacy in a digital community are not yet enough developed. 3) Cognitive biases and heuristics: Unlike privacy calculus theory:[some?] behavioral economists believe we are not purely rational agents, but have a cognitive bias when making decisions [Should be checked with an economist?] The article goes through a number of such biases. 4) Bounded rationality, incomplete information, and information asymmetries We do not have an overview of all the consequences 5) Quantum theoretical homomorphism (!) One study sees human decision-making as analogous to the principle of uncertainty in quantum mechanics, i.e. the decision is uncertain until it is taken. This latest is based on a single study so not exactly common. Lemi Baruh, Ekin Secinti, Zeynep Cemalcilar, Online Privacy Concerns and Privacy Management: A Meta-Analytical Review, Journal of Communication,Volume 67, Issue 1, February 2017, Pages 26-53, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12276 Meta-analysis of 166 research studies from 34 countries found that privacy concerns do not predict the use of social media, but that those who are more concerned about privacy use other online services (other than social media) to a lesser extent, share less information and are more likely to use "privacy protective measures." Social media has positive effects on users' social needs and needs to express themselves, which is perhaps why privacy-concerned users are willing to use social media but not online shopping, public services, etc.m. that do not meet social/emotional needs (p. 28) Mariya Stoilova, Rishita Nandagiri & Sonia Livingstone (2019) Children's understanding of personal data and privacy online – a systematic evidence mapping. Information, Communication & Society, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1657164<https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1657164> · There are few studies of younger children and it complicates knowledge-based policy and social development · Most studies focus on interpersonal privacy, i.e. sharing information between individuals, and not on the commercial or institutional collection of children's personal data. · Most studies focus on personal data that is shared deliberately, and not on metadata and data traces, which are also important for children's privacy. · Most empirical studies look at children's behavior and practices, and not on their media expertise, specifically their expertise to consent to privacy practices. · --> We need better research on children's privacy, especially in these fields. Annotated bibliography - other relevant research articles Acquisti, Alessandro. "Privacy in Electronic Commerce and the Economics of Immediate Gratification." In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce - EC '04, 21. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1145/988772.988777.<https://doi.org/10.1145/988772.988777> Behavioral economist who argued that consumers are not able to be rational actors in connection with online privacy: "we show why individuals who may genuinely want to protect their privacy might not do so because of psychological distortions well documented in the behavioral literature; we show that these distortions may affect not only 'naive' individuals but also 'sophisticated' ones; and we prove that this may occur also when individuals perceive the risks from not protecting their privacy as significant." Paul Bradshaw (2017) Chilling Effect, Digital Journalism, 5:3, 334-352, DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2016.1251329<https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1251329> Journalists in regional newspapers (in the UK) do not appear to have good information security for source protection, despite constant revelations about electronic surveillance by the state and police. Brown, B. Studying the internet experience. HP Laboratories Technical Report (HPL-2001-49) http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-49.pdf (2001) The first time the term "privacy paradox" was used (otherwise not a very exciting report from Hewlett Packard on how people used the web). "For online shopping we explored its popularity and in particular the concerns of users with regard to privacy and security. This uncovered something of a "privacy paradox" between users complaints regarding privacy and their use of supermarket loyalty cards." Penney, Jonathon W. "Chilling Effects: Online Surveillance and Wikipedia Use." Berkeley Technology Law Journal 31, No. 1 (2016): 117-74 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2769645. Empirical research specifically exploring the chilling effect of government surveillance Penney (2017) is based on Wikipedia's lawsuit against the NSA in 2015 (see their article in NYTimes<https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wikipedia-users.h…> 10.03.2015, in which Jimmy Wales and Lila Tretikov argue that monitoring online activity leads to a chilling effect that inhibits freedom of expression and free flow of knowledge: "Pervasive surveillance has a chilling effect. It stifles freedom of expression and the free exchange of knowledge that Wikimedia was designed to enable." The lawsuit was dismissed, in part because it is difficult to prove a chilling effect. Summary of this study from Büchi et.al. 2019 page 4 (paragraph 3.2) (this is almost directly translated from Büchi, so nb be careful to properly quote if used) This study of activity on Wikipedia after NSA/PRISM surveillance revelations in June 2013 is the first empirical study of the chilling effect online. Penney distinguishes four types of chilling effects online, with different causal explanations. The chilling is due to either i. statutes or regulations prohibiting certain online activity ii. Government or non-governmental surveillance iii. Vague legislation with threats of consequences for individuals iv. "secondary chilling effects" where people other than the user himself (e.g. the user's friends on social media) bond their behaviour Penney's findings are contrary to research on the"privacy paradox"- meaning that people complain that they have to give up too much personal data but that they still give up their information voluntarily. Penney challenges this theory: yes, we give up personal data to apps, but we also put a leash on our behavior because we know that the apps get access to the data. Bernal, Paul. "Data Gathering, Surveillance and Human Rights: Recasting the Debate." Journal of Cyber Policy 1, No. 2 (July 2, 2016): 243–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2016.1228990.<https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2016.1228990> The collection of personal data threatens not only privacy, but also other human rights, which collectively impair the safety of society, In this article in the Journal of Cyber Policy, British law professor Paul Bernal argues that it is important to see how data collection and surveillance on the internet threatens not only an individual right to privacy but also a collective need for security that includes freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association and prohibition of discrimination. It is also failed to distinguish commercial and state collection of personal data, the authors argue. He further discusses the question of when surveillance occurs: when data is collected, when data is analyzed algorithmically or when data is viewed or analyzed by humans? The main point is that the idea that privacy and security must be balanced against each other is flawed, because they do not stand in contrast to each other but affect each other greatly. Increased privacy can lead to increased security. Bernal goes through a number of different types of surveillance, and some relevant litigation. He points out that profiling of individuals is deeply problematic, including in relation to men's rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion). Freedom of speech is also threatened. He mentions a number of cases where the police sought access to confidential communications between journalists and sources. He also cites a PEN report (2013) that shows that many have limited their utterances after the Snowden case. This quote from the conclusion sums up the points in the article good: Statements such as Theresa May's that 'the UK does not engage in mass surveillance' though semantically arguable, are in effect deeply unhelpful. A more accurate statement would be that the UK engages in bulk data gathering that interferes not only with privacy but with freedom of expression, association and assembly, the right to a free trial and the prohibition of discrimination, and which puts people at a wide variety of un and unquantified risks. Bernal<https://people.uea.ac.uk/paul_bernal/info?type=researchinterests> has also published three books that look relevant: Internet Privacy Rights: Rights to Protect Autonomy (CUP, 2014), The Internet, Warts and All: Free Speech, Privacy and Truth (CUP, 2018) and What Do We Know And What We Should Do About Internet Privacy (Sage, 2020). Ashraf, Cameran. "Artificial Intelligence and the Rights to Assembly and Association." Journal of Cyber Policy 5, No. 2 (May 3, 2020): 163–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2020.1778760.<https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2020.1778760> Similar points to Bernal, but less directly on privacy. While much other research has focused on how AI will affect privacy and freedom of expression, this article focuses on how AI will affect freedom of assembly and freedom of association, both of which are important human rights. This article looks at how AI affects what content we see and what content exists (because something is automatically deleted or moderated away). The article ends with a number of policy recommendations. Dexe, Jacob, and Ulrik Franke. "Nordic Lights? National AI Policies for Doing Well by Doing Good." Journal of Cyber Policy, December 9, 2020, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2020.1856160.<https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2020.1856160> Relevant because it offers a comparison of official strategy documents on artificial intelligence in the Nordic countries (Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) - but privacy is not a main point. The article is based on the "AI4People" taxonomy, which proposes five ethical principles of KI: goodness (beneficience), non-malficience, autonomy, fairness and intelligibility (explicability). The article aims to find out how the national strategies deal with ethics: how can we ensure that AI is used for good, and not evil? Nordic and European countries see ethical AI not only as a moral imperative but also as a competitive advantage - see quotes from relevant strategies in the article. Privacy comes into this in principle that AI should not lead to abuse (it should be non-maleficient). All countries except Denmark explicitly mention privacy in their AI strategies. Danish, Finnish and Norwegian strategies also mention the ownership of data (autonomy) as important. Unfortunately, the article concludes that it would be nice if it is true that ethical use of AI is a competitive advantage, but the Nordic strategy documents fail to make strong arguments for this, and are unlikely to convince anyone who is not already convinced of this. He, Catherine, Irwin Reyes, Álvaro Feal, Joel Reardon, Primal Wijesekera, Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, Amit Elazari, Kenneth A. Bamberger, and Serge Egelman. "The Price Is (Not) Right: Comparing Privacy in Free and Paid Apps." Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies 2020, No. 3 (July 1, 2020): 222-42. https://doi.org/10.2478/popets-2020-0050.<https://doi.org/10.2478/popets-2020-0050> A survey shows that consumers expect better privacy in apps they buy than in free apps, but an analysis of 5,877 pairs of free apps with their paid premium versions showed that in very many cases it's not true. Micheli, M., Lutz, C., & Büchi, M. (2018). Digital footprints: An emerging dimension of digital inequality. Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, 16(3), 242-251. doi:http://dx.doi.org.pva.uib.no/10.1108/JICES-02-2018-0014 Our digital tracks create a new arena for discrimination and digital inequality. Patella-Rey, Pj. "Beyond Privacy: Bodily Integrity as an Alternative Framework for Understanding Non-Consensual Pornography." Information, Communication & Society 21, No. 5 (May 4, 2018): 786–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428653.<https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428653> Revenge is not just about privacy, it is perceived as a violation of bodily integrity, and is therefore perceived as extremely infringing. Penney, Jonathon, Online Abuse, Chilling Effects, and Human Rights (June 5, 2020). in Dubois, E. and Martin-Bariteau, F. (eds.), Citizenship in a Connected Canada: A Research and Policy Agenda, Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press, 2020, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3620520 It is often claimed that laws against cyberharassment will have a "chilling effect" on free speech, but Penney argues that such laws will allow minorities and especially women to speak freer. Online harassment, bullying, hate, "doxxing," and revenge porn all have a silencing effect on victims (Franks, 2018, p. 307; Citron, 2014, pp. 196-197). Such abuse has a "totalizing and devastating impact" upon victims (Citron, 2014, p. 29). In fact, silencing victims is often the primary motivation for such abuse (Citron, 2014, p. 196). Moreover, these chilling effects have a disproportionate impact on the speech and engagement of certain people, such as minority populations, already marginalized due to systematic and overt barriers (Franks, 2018, p. 307). Qin, Bei, David Strömberg, and Yanhui Wu. 2017. "Why Does China Allow Freer Social Media? Protests versus Surveillance and Propaganda." Journal of Economic Perspectives,31 (1): 117-40.DOI: 10.1257/jep.31.1.117 An analysis of 13.2 billion records on Sina Weibo from the period 2009-2013 showed that there were MANY sensitive records, e.g. about protests and accusations of corruption - and records could be used to predict protests/corruption scandals before they actually occurred. In other words, social media monitoring will be useful for a state. In other words, it is probably not in the interest of an authoritarian state to censor social media. The researchers had assumed that there would be little sensitive material, because it is well documented that Chinese internet users have been penalized after posting about protests m.m. (see page 123). However, in this dataset they found NO chilling effect, i.e. there was nothing to suggest that users who posted such records were idenfied and punished - they could see that users continued to post even after publishing sensitive records. Shruti Sannon, Natalya N. Bazarova, and Dan Cosley. Privacy Lies: Understanding How, When, and Why People Lie to Protect Their Privacy in Multiple Online Contexts. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Paper 52, 1-13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173626 A response to the experience of having to give up personal data against their will is privacy lies,as Sannon et.al. (2018) defines as "the deliberate provision of false personal information to protect as facet of an individual's privacy". Half of American teens have provided false information on social media profiles, and 40% of internet users report lying to commercial websites. Speicher, Till, Muhammad Ali, Giridhari Venkatadri, Filipe Ribeiro, George Arvanitakis, et al.. Potential at Discrimination in Online Targeted Advertising. FAT 2018 - Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Feb 2018, New-York, United States. pp.1-15. ?<https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01955343>hal-01955343<https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01955343>?<https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01955343> A quantitative analysis of how Facebook allows advertising buyers to discriminate indirectly by race by choosing other characteristics. Stoycheff, Elizabeth, G. Scott Burgess, and Maria Clara Martucci. "Online Censorship and Digital Surveillance: The Relationship between Suppression Technologies and Democratization across Countries." Information, Communication & Society 23, no. 4 (March 20, 2020): 474–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1518472.<https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1518472> Quantitative examination of the relationship between state surveillance of the internet, censorship of the internet and democracy, in 63 countries. Findings: Censorship takes place in both democratic and non-democratic countries, but more surveillance is closely linked to less democracy. Protests also take place in countries with a high degree of surveillance, but in these countries the net is less likely to be used to facilitate it. In other words, surveillance harms democracy more than censorship. The article includes a number of examples of suppression of citizens' free speech/action through surveillance (in the sub-chapter Implications). Stoycheff, Elizabeth. 2016. "Under Surveillance: Examining Facebook's Spiral of Silence Effects in the Wake of NSA Internet Monitoring." Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 93 (2): 296–311. Stoycheff, Elizabeth, Juan Liu, Kai Xu, and Kunto Wibowo. "Privacy and the Panopticon: Online Mass Surveillance's Deterrence and Chilling Effects." New Media & Society 21, No. 3 (March 2019): 602-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818801317.<https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818801317> Two studies: 1) They showed half of the informants a news article about privacy violations and surveillance, and then asked lots of questions to distract them from realizing what the researchers were really interested, and then asked about planned online activity. There were significantly FEWER people who would participate in online political activities over the next week in the group that had seen the news story about government surveillance. 2) With a selection of American Muslims asking a series of questions, half showed a "terms of service" explanation that the state could monitor their answers, and asked more questions - there was a clear effect that people were more "cautious." Similar effect in the group of Muslims and the other group, where no one said they were Muslims. Quote: Panoptic-like surveillance has been widely criticized for violating citizens' universal rights to privacy (e.g. Bernal, 2016<https://journals-sagepub-com.pva.uib.no/doi/full/10.1177/1461444818801317>; Brown, 2015<https://journals-sagepub-com.pva.uib.no/doi/full/10.1177/1461444818801317>, and posing deleterious consequences for US democracy by deterring, or chilling, online information seeking (Penney, 2016<https://journals-sagepub-com.pva.uib.no/doi/full/10.1177/1461444818801317>, 2017<https://journals-sagepub-com.pva.uib.no/doi/full/10.1177/1461444818801317>)disclosures (Dinev et al., 2008), political<https://journals-sagepub-com.pva.uib.no/doi/full/10.1177/1461444818801317>discussions (Stoycheff, 2016), tolerance<https://journals-sagepub-com.pva.uib.no/doi/full/10.1177/1461444818801317>(Stoycheff et al., 2017), and may even pose<https://journals-sagepub-com.pva.uib.no/doi/full/10.1177/1461444818801317>ramifications for offline behavior (Marder et al., 2016<https://journals-sagepub-com.pva.uib.no/doi/full/10.1177/1461444818801317>). Waldman, A. (2019). Law, Privacy, and Online Dating: "Revenge Porn" in Gay Online Communities. Law & Social Inquiry, 44(4), 987-1018. doi:10.1017/lsi.2018.29 Users of the dating app Grindr are at far higher risk of their nude photos being shared without consent. Dating apps for gays require a high degree of sharing of personal information. Wessel-Aas, Jon. "The 2014 Law of Press Freedom: One Step Forward - And Two Back?" Status of Freedom of Expression in Norway - Fritt Ord Foundation's Monitor Project. Free Speech, 2014. http://ytringsfrihet.no/publikasjon/rapport-pressefrihetens-kar-i-2014-ett-…. It can be "safely stated that the development towards increased opportunities for state control and monitoring of the general population's confidential communication has been dramatic. (..) This obviously challenges the general freedom of communication, through the potentially chilling effect this may have on the willingness to use general communication channels for confidential communication. For what kind of behavior is it really that can give the authorities reason to investigate if you are preparing to develop a resolution that you are not even conscious yet? (s 56) Source protection: As these conditions are regulated in Norway – and internationally – today, real source protection, when communication takes place electronically, is far from illusory. Reports PEN America. 2013. Chilling Effects: NSA Surveillance Drives U.S. Writers to Self-Censor. New York: PEN American Center. Interesting cases featured in the media Caplan, Robyn. "Pornhub Is Just the Latest Example of the Move Toward a Verified Internet." Slate, December 18, 2020. https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/pornhub-verified-users-twitter.html.<https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/pornhub-verified-users-twitter.html> Morrison, Sara, and Rebecca Heilweil. "How Teachers Are Sacrificing Student Privacy to Stop Cheating," December 18, 2020 https://www.vox.com/recode/22175021/school-cheating-student-privacy-remote-…. _______________________________________________ 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/

3 2