- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

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

Information visualization resources
by Gohar F. Khan 24 Jan '21

24 Jan '21

Hello list members, I am developing a course on information visualisation and looking for resources (articles, case studies, books, syllabus, videos, slides, etc) on Information visualisation in support of business decisions and transforming data into meaningful information. Some examples topics include: - Management approaches to visualisation and visual explorations - Information management and information principles - Information visualisation for decision-making in a business context - Principles of information visualisation. - Communication issues around information visualisation, visual complexity, and business value of visualisation, etc. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Regards, Gohar -- *Dr. Gohar Khan **|* *Senior Lecturer of Digital Business* *|* *Undergraduate and Graduate Convenor for Digital Business* *|* *School of Management & Marketing **|** Faculty of Management **|* *University of Waikato* *Private Bag 3105* *|* *Hamilton 3240* *|* *New Zealand**|* *+64 7 838 4233* *|** gohar.khan(a)waikato.ac.nz <gohar.khan(a)waikato.ac.nz> ** | o**ffice: MSB.2.32D / Web*: gfkhan.wordpress.com *Check out my books on* social media analytics <https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Value-Social-Media-Analytics/dp/1977543979/…> and digital marketing analytics <https://www.routledge.com/Digital-Analytics-for-Marketing/Sponder-Khan/p/bo…>

3 2

15th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2021): Last Mile for Paper Submission!
by Announce Announcements 24 Jan '21

24 Jan '21

*** Last Mile for Paper Submission! *** 15th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS 2021) May 12-14, 2021, Royal Apollonia Beach Hotel 5*, Limassol, Cyprus http://www.rcis-conf.com/rcis2021/ Abstract submission deadline (recommended): January 25, 2021 (AoE) Paper submission deadline: February 1, 2021 (AoE) (Proceedings to be published by Springer; Special Issue in DKE, Elsevier) SCOPE AND TOPICS RCIS aims to bring together scientists, researchers, engineers and practitioners from a wide range of information science fields and to provide opportunities for knowledge sharing and dissemination. RCIS 2021 will continue paying attention to traditional topics at the conference; in addition, we solicit submissions aligned with the special theme "Information Science and global crisis". Global crisis, as the pandemic we are experiencing in these days, natural disasters, wars and international political crisis, are challenging Information Science to help building effective management solutions, to learn from previous experience how to prevent them, and to support Humans keep on performing core activities, as education, and communication. The diversity of crises' causes, the quality of the collected data as well as the complexity of the underlying mechanisms are among the relevant research challenges. RCIS welcomes submissions from the whole spectrum of the information science field. The list of themes and topics includes, but is not limited to: Information Systems and their Engineering · Requirements Engineering · Software Testing · Information Security and Risk · Method Engineering User-Oriented Approaches · Social Computing and Social Network Analysis · User-Centred Design · Collaborative Computing · Human Factors in Information Systems Data and Information Management · Databases and Information · Information Search and Discovery · Conceptual Modelling and Ontologies Business Process Management · Business Process Engineering and Reengineering · Process Mining · Enterprise Engineering Domain-specific IS Engineering · E-Health, e-Government, e-Commerce, ... · Web-Based Applications and Services · Industry 4.0 · Web-Based Applications and Services · Smart Cities · Educational Technologies · Digital Humanities Data Science · Big Data & Business Analytics · Decision Information Systems · Knowledge Management · Knowledge Discovery from Data Information Infrastructures · Cyber-Physical Systems · Web Information Systems · Grid Computing and Cloud Computing · Internet of Things · Pervasive and Mobile Computing Reflective Research and Practice · Research Methodologies in Information Science · Impact of Information on the Enterprise and the Individual · Lifecycle Models · Design Science and Rationale Tutorials, Doctoral Consortium, Posters & Demos and Research Projects @RCIS tracks will complement the main conference. SUBMISSION PROCESS Papers shall be formatted according to the Springer LNCS/LNBIP conference proceedings template (for LaTeX and Word): https://www.springer.com/gp/computer-science/lncs/conference-proceedings-gu… . Papers that have already been accepted or are currently under review for other conferences or journals will not be considered for publication at RCIS 2021. Papers should be in English and must be associated to one of the following categories: Technical solution papers (max 16 pages Springer) present solutions that are novel or significantly improve existing approaches. A technical solution paper must include a preliminary validation of the proposed solution, and results must be stated clearly enough so that it is possible to validate them in follow-up research. Evaluation papers (max 16 pages Springer) evaluate existing problem situations or validate proposed solutions through scientific means, i.e., by empirical studies, experiments, case studies, simulations, mathematical proofs, etc. The research method must be sound and appropriate. Industrial practice and experience papers (max 16 pages Springer) thoroughly present problems or challenges encountered in practice, elaborate on success or failure with existing approaches, or report on industrial practice (e.g., methods and tools). A paper in this category shall provide a clear context, detail the problem or the industrial practice, and explain the lessons learned. Work in progress papers (max 8 pages Springer) present relevant preliminary results across the spectrum of information science. These papers can either present a novel technical solution, or report on a preliminary evaluation of a technique. Please note that the maximum length of the paper includes references, appendices, etc. The submission site is https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=rcis2021 . By submitting a paper, the authors agree that at least one of them will register to the conference and present the paper. The appearance of a paper in the Springer proceedings is dependent on the registration of one author within the early registration deadline on March 29, 2021. We adopt a single-blind review format, meaning that the author names are included in the paper itself under the paper title. JOURNAL SPECIAL ISSUE A selection of the best accepted papers of RCIS 2021, chosen by a dedicated committee, will be invited to submit an extended version of the RCIS paper to the Data & Knowledge Engineering (DKE) journal published by Elsevier (https://www.journals.elsevier.com/data-and-knowledge-engineering) The selection of the papers to invite will be based on the review scores and arguments, and the potential for extension. IMPORTANT DATES · Abstract submission deadline for regular papers: January 25, 2021 (AoE) · Regular paper submission deadline: February 1, 2021 · Notification to authors and registration opening: March 12, 2021 · Author registration deadline for all paper types: March 29, 2021 · Camera-ready copy deadline for all paper types: March 29, 2021 · Conference: May 12-14, 2021 CONFERENCE COMMITTEES Steering Committee · Saïd Assar, Institut Mines-Telecom Business School, France · Marko Bajec,University of Ljubljana, Slovenia · Pericles Loucopoulos, Manchester University, University Kingdom · Haralambos Moratidis, University of Brighton, United Kingdom · Selmin Nurcan, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France · Oscar Pastor, Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain · Jolita Ralyté, CUI, University of Geneva, Suisse · Colette Rolland, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France · Jelena Zdravkovic, Stockholm University, Sweden General Chairs · George A. Papadopoulos, University of Cyprus, Cyprus · Selmin Nurcan, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France Organising Chair · Petros Stratis, Easy Conferences LTD., Cyprus Program Chairs · Samira Cherfi, CNAM, France · Anna Perini, FBK, Italy Social Media Chairs · Itzel Morales Ramirez, Instituto de Ingeniería de la UNAM, Mexico · Vítor E. Silva Souza, UFES, Brasil Proceedings Chair · Raihana Ferdous, FBK, Italy

1 0

Recommendations for early studies on changing ICT/social media uses and practices amongst families in Covid times, anyone?
by Helga Sadowski 24 Jan '21

24 Jan '21

Dear all, I am looking for references and reading lists - or like to create one - containing early studies on how "these Corona times" are having an impact on how (extended) family members communicate with each other (cross-households, within households). I assume many of you have worked on/read on such or related issues, so I would be very happy to hear back from you. More than happy to also share the literature list afterwards, of course. With best wishes from Sweden, Helga (Researcher in HCI, Uppsala University) N?r du har kontakt med oss p? Uppsala universitet med e-post s? inneb?r det att vi behandlar dina personuppgifter. F?r att l?sa mer om hur vi g?r det kan du l?sa h?r: http://www.uu.se/om-uu/dataskydd-personuppgifter/ E-mailing Uppsala University means that we will process your personal data. For more information on how this is performed, please read here: http://www.uu.se/en/about-uu/data-protection-policy

2 1

WEBCAST TODAY: Empowering Rural Communities – Opportunities and Challenges
by Joly MacFie 23 Jan '21

23 Jan '21

The second Rural Dev SIG webinar of 2021 - Real Time Text will be running at https://bit.ly/2Y9c0Uy ISOC Live posted: "On Saturday 23 January 2021 at 6pm-7pm IST (12:30-13:30 UTC) the Internet Society Rural Development Special Interest Group (ISOC RD SIG) presents a webinar ‘Empowering Rural Communities - Opportunities and Challenges‘ featuring Mr. Ganesh K, Assistant pro" <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ruralsig2021-2>On *Saturday 23 January 2021* at *6pm-7pm* IST (12:30-13:30 UTC) the *Internet Society Rural Development Special Interest Group <https://ruralisocsig.org/>* (ISOC RD SIG) presents a webinar ‘*Empowering Rural Communities - Opportunities and Challenges <https://ruralisocsig.org/ruralsig2021-2>*‘ featuring Mr. *Ganesh K* <https://www.facebook.com/ganesh.davangere>, Assistant professor in Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology, Davangere. *MODERATOR / HOST* *Adarsh B U*, Founder and President, ISOC RD SIG *LIVESTREAM https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ruralsig2021-2 <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ruralsig2021-2>* *TWITTER: @IsocSig @2ganesh #ruraldevelopment* *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/groups/ruralisocsig/ <https://www.facebook.com/groups/ruralisocsig/>* *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/ruralsig2021-1 <https://archive.org/details/ruralsig2021-1>* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13567/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 0

Truth and Trust Online 2021: Open Call for Nominations
by Ahmed Medien 23 Jan '21

23 Jan '21

Dear all, Truth and Trust Online (TTO) has launched an open call for new members nominations to join its Board of Trustees. TTO started in 2019 as an independent initiative and organization and, in 2021, joined Hacks Hackers, a US-incorporated non-profit, as an independent chapter. Our mission is to bring together all parties working toward improving the truthfulness and trustworthiness of online communications. TTO is an annual forum for academia, industry, non-profit organizations, and other stakeholders to discuss the problems facing (social) media platforms and technical solutions to understand and address them. You can view past conferences here (2019 <https://truthandtrustonline.com/2019-home/>) and here (2020 <https://truthandtrustonline.com/2020-home-2/>). The nomination process is open to members who will contribute to our mission with their expertise and help us build a sustainable future for the organization. You can read more about the election and nomination process here in our announcement <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jHQw5XOQ13c4TSuXUDSekPGKXDL2IEcOVf-TDGd…>. You can directly nominate a Trustee here <https://forms.gle/bnAZ1XHz8t4CUm4H7>. You can nominate yourself as well as more than one person. If you do have any questions, do not hesitate to reply back to this email. Best regards, TTO Admin - Ahmed Medien ahmed(a)hackshackers.com truthandtrustonline.com youtube.com/truthandtrustonline <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVfxladyS0NozgeFb-yYPLQ>

1 0

WEBCAST TODAY – The Storming of the Capitol and the Future of Speech Online
by Joly MacFie 22 Jan '21

22 Jan '21

You may recall we last visited Stanford CPC <https://isoc.live/12131/> just after Trump announced Section 230 reform back in June 2020. There's been a fair amount of water, including the recent tsunami, under the bridge since then. ISOC Live posted: "On Friday January 22 2021 at 1pm-2pm PST (21:00-22:00 UTC) the Stanford Cyber Policy Center hosts a seminar 'The Storming of the Capitol and the Future of Speech Online'. A panel will discuss the role of social media during the Trump presidency, including" [image: livestream] <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/cpcstorm>On *Friday January 22 2021* at *1pm-2pm PST* (21:00-22:00 UTC) the Stanford Cyber Policy Center <https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/> hosts a seminar '*The Storming of the Capitol and the Future of Speech Online <https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/events/storming-capital-and-future-speech-on…>*'. A panel will discuss the role of social media during the Trump presidency, including the role of platform policies in fomenting or responding to the recent violence, the benefits and risks posed by steps subsequently taken, and what this means for the future of speech online. *SPEAKERS* *Nate Persily*, Faculty Co-Director of the Cyber Policy Center *Daphne Keller*, Director, Cyber Policy Center Program on Platform Regulation *Alex Stamos*, Director, Cyber Policy Center Internet Observatory *Renee DiResta*, Research Manager, Cyber Policy Center Internet Observatory *MODERATOR*: *Kelly Born*, Executive Director, Cyber Policy Center *LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety/cpcstorm <http://livestream.com/internetsociety/cpcstorm>* *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM: http://ow.ly/Fsht50D8L5E <http://ow.ly/Fsht50D8L5E>* *TWITTER: @StanfordCyber <https://twitter.com/search?q=StanfordCyber&src=typed_query&f=live> @persily @alexstamos @daphnehk @noUpside @KellyKborn #section230* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ <https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/>* *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive <https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive>* *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/cpcstorm <https://archive.org/details/cpcstorm>* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13576/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 0

Call for applications: Postdoctoral Fellowships 2021-2022
by Yang, Guobin 22 Jan '21

22 Jan '21

Dear list members, Please help us spread the word about these fellowships. Thank you! -Guobin Yang *** Call for Applications: CDCS Postdoctoral Fellowships, 2021-2022 The Center on Digital Culture and Society<https://cdcs.asc.upenn.edu/> at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication invites applications to fill two post-doctoral fellowship positions for the 2021-2022 academic year. Applications are welcomed from scholars who have received their Ph.D. or equivalent degrees in the last three years. The term of appointment is September 1, 2021 – August 31, 2022. Founded in July 2019, the Center on Digital Culture and Society (CDCS) supports critical, interdisciplinary scholarship on digital culture, technology, and society. CDCS aims to develop critical approaches to digital cultural studies and create spaces for dialogue and collaboration among academics, citizens, and activists. CDCS postdoctoral fellowships support research on all aspects of digital culture and society which fall within CDCS’s broad mission. For these two positions, we seek scholars whose work contributes to the study of one or more of the following areas: 1) technology and social movements; 2) technology and critical race studies; 3) technology, ethics, and cultural transformation; and 4) digital media and social impact. Applicants from all disciplines in the humanities and social sciences are encouraged to apply. Fellows at the CDCS pursue their own research and participate in the activities of the Center. The fellowship comes with a stipend of $60,000, a $3,000 research fund, and health insurance. Depending on needs, fellows may be asked to teach an online elective course in areas of their expertise. The University of Pennsylvania is an EO/AA employer and we welcome applications from women and minorities. To receive full consideration, applications should be received by February 20, 2021. To apply, please send a cover letter, a C.V., a research statement, and a writing sample as one pdf document to: cdcs(a)asc.upenn.edu<mailto:cdcs@asc.upenn.edu>. Finalists will be notified and asked to arrange two letters of recommendation to be sent to the same email.

1 0