Científicos crean primer archivo chileno digital de noticias en Twitter – El Mostrador

¿Cómo reaccionaron los chilenos ante la elección de Donald Trump? ¿Cuál fue el impacto del caso SQM en los usuarios de Twitter?Son preguntas que podrán hacerse periodistas, historiadores, profesionales de las ciencias sociales y ciudadanos en “Galean”, archivo digital de Twitter que reúne reacciones, opiniones, impresiones de los usuarios chilenos ante eventos noticiosos.

Fuente: Científicos crean primer archivo chileno digital de noticias en Twitter – El Mostrador


The far right thrives on global networks. They must be fought online and off | Julia Ebner | Opinion | The Guardian

“Muslims are like cockroaches. An infestation that needs to be eradicated. Immediately. Permanently”, reads the tweet by one of thousands of anonymous far-right Twitter accounts that spread hate against ethnic and religious minorities each day.

Fuente: The far right thrives on global networks. They must be fought online and off | Julia Ebner | Opinion | The Guardian


In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots

To see how extreme and damaging this behavior has become, let’s just quickly examine two utterly false claims that Democrats over the past four days — led by party-loyal journalists — have disseminated and induced thousands of people, if not more, to believe.

Fuente: In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots


It might be trending, but that doesn’t make it true | John Naughton | Opinion | The Guardian

As the fallout from the first US presidential debate showed, taking social media at face value is foolhardy

Fuente: It might be trending, but that doesn’t make it true | John Naughton | Opinion | The Guardian


Lo que pasa en Twitter se queda (casi siempre) en Twitter | Verne EL PAÍS

Lo que pasa en Twitter se queda (casi siempre) en Twitter | Verne EL PAÍS.

La bolsa de Nueva York, el día en el que Twitter comenzó a cotizarLa bolsa de Nueva York, el día en el que Twitter comenzó a cotizar.

Twitter me gusta. No lo voy a negar. Y no estoy solo: esta red social cuenta con 288 millones de usuarios que se conectan al menos una vez al mes y que escriben 500 millones de tuits cada día, según datos facilitados por la empresa. Esos tuits pueden ayudarte a pasar el rato o proponerte artículos que no sospechabas ni que existían. También, por qué no, en Twitter puedes conocer a gente maja e incluso encontrar trabajo.

Pero todo esto no quita que Twitter esté sobrevalorado. Le prestamos más atención a esta red de la que realmente se merece. Es una red muy usada, sin duda, pero también tiene sus propios códigos y un entorno cerrado. Es decir, lo que pasa en Twitter se queda en Twitter.

Entonces, ¿por qué parece lo contrario?

Los titulares que hacen referencia a cómo “arden las redes sociales”, suelen centrarse en Twitter. Alguno puede creer que los medios tratan lo que ocurre en la red buscando el clic fácil, incluso el retuit. No es así. Varía mucho del medio (y de la noticia), pero Twitter suele traer menos de un 10% del tráfico que procede de las redes sociales. La mayor parte, hasta el 90%, viene de Facebook, que tiene 890 millones de usuarios cada día. Incluso a pesar de que Twitter está lleno de periodistas que se retuitean los unos a los otros.

Simplemente ocurre que Twitter es muy cómodo para los medios (sí, Verne incluido), ya que los usuarios comentan muy a menudo contenidos ligados a la actualidad, por lo que son un termómetro rápido para saber qué está ocurriendo.

Hay más. Como escribe Eugeni Morozov en To Save Everything, Click Here, no es de extrañar que muchas campañas promocionales aspiren a ser el centro de conversación en esta red: “Una vez la historia consigue este estatus tan deseado, atrae aún más atención, llegando a conversaciones que van más allá de Twitter. En este sentido, Twitter también es una máquina, no una cámara; no se limita a reflejar realidades: las crea de forma activa”.

Sería más difícil recurrir a Facebook para intentar ver qué se está comentando sobre un tema. La mayoría de los perfiles Facebook son privados y sus actualizaciones no suelen ser comentarios a la actualidad, sino más bien contenido personal. .

Instagram también tiene más peso que Twitter. Desde diciembre, también cuenta con más usuarios: 300 millones al mes. Pero claro, los contenidos de esta red no están tan marcados por la actualidad como ocurre en el caso de Twitter y aunque se usen hashtags, resulta más difícil buscar fotos sobre un tema que tuits.


Should Twitter, Facebook and Google Executives be the Arbiters of What We See and Read? – The Intercept

Should Twitter, Facebook and Google Executives be the Arbiters of What We See and Read? – The Intercept.

By 246
Featured photo - Should Twitter, Facebook and Google Executives be the Arbiters of What We See and Read?DEAUVILLE, FRANCE – MAY 26: (L-R) Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Union, Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook Inc. and Eric Schmidt, chairman of Google Inc. arrive for the internet session of the G8 summit on May 26, 2011 in Deauville, France. (Photo by Chris Ratcliffe – Pool/Getty Images)

There have been increasingly vocal calls for Twitter, Facebook and other Silicon Valley corporations to more aggressively police what their users are permitted to see and read. Last month in The Washington Post, for instance, MSNBC host Ronan Farrow demanded that social media companies ban the accounts of “terrorists” who issue “direct calls” for violence.

This week, the announcement by Twitter CEO Dick Costolo that the company would prohibit the posting of the James Foley beheading video and photos from it (and suspend the accounts of anyone who links to the video) met with overwhelming approval. What made that so significant, as The Guardian‘s James Ball noted today, was that “Twitter has promoted its free speech credentials aggressively since the network’s inception.” By contrast, Facebook has long actively regulated what its users are permitted to say and read; at the end of 2013, the company reversed its prior ruling and decided that posting of beheading videos would be allowed, but only if the user did not express support for the act.

Given the savagery of the Foley video, it’s easy in isolation to cheer for its banning on Twitter. But that’s always how censorship functions: it invariably starts with the suppression of viewpoints which are so widely hated that the emotional response they produce drowns out any consideration of the principle being endorsed.

It’s tempting to support criminalization of, say, racist views as long as one focuses on one’s contempt for those views and ignores the serious dangers of vesting the state with the general power to create lists of prohibited ideas. That’s why free speech defenders such as the ACLU so often represent and defend racists and others with heinous views in free speech cases: because that’s where free speech erosions become legitimized in the first instance when endorsed or acquiesced to.

The question posed by Twitter’s announcement is not whether you think it’s a good idea for people to see the Foley video. Instead, the relevant question is whether you want Twitter, Facebook and Google executives exercising vast power over what can be seen and read.

It’s certainly true, as defenders of Twitter have already pointed out, that as a legal matter, private actors – as opposed to governments – always possess and frequently exercise the right to decide which opinions can be aired using their property. Generally speaking, the public/private dichotomy is central to any discussions of the legality or constitutionality of “censorship.”


Twitter: from free speech champion to selective censor? | Technology | theguardian.com

Twitter: from free speech champion to selective censor? | Technology | theguardian.com.

By acting on footage of James Foley’s murder, Twitter has taken responsibility in a way it hasn’t over abuse and threats. So what happens next?
Man's hands at computer

Twitter was once characterised by its general counsel as ‘the free speech wing of the free speech party’. Photograph: Alamy

Twitter has got itself into a tangle. The social network’s decision to remove all links to the horrific footage showing the apparent beheading of the photojournalist James Foley is one that most of its users, reasonably, support.

The social network went still further, suspending or banning users who shared the footage or certain stills, following public tweets from the company’s CEO, Dick Costolo, that it would take action against such users.

It is hard to think of anyone having a good reason to view or share such barbaric footage, but Twitter’s proactive approach reverses a long record of non-intervention.

Twitter has promoted its free speech credentials aggressively since the network’s inception. The company’s former general counsel once characterised the company as “the free speech wing of the free speech party”, an approach characterised by removing content only in extreme situations – when made to by governments in accordance with local law, or through various channels designed to report harassment.

The social network’s response to the Foley footage and images is clearly a break from that response: not only did the network respond to reports complaining about posts using the material, they also seem to have proactively sought it out in other instances.

And yet there is not a universal consensus on the use of the images, as was reflected by the New York Post and New York Daily News’ decision to use graphic stills from the footage as their front-page splashes. Here begin the problems for Twitter: the network decided not to ban or suspend either outlet for sharing the images – despite banning other users for doing the same.

Twitter has not been nearly as eager to enter the content policing game in other situations. Like many other major companies, Twitter has long insisted it is not a publisher but a platform.

The distinction is an important one: publishers, such as the Guardian, bear a far greater degree of responsibility for what appears on their sites. By remaining a platform, Twitter is absolved of legal responsibility for most of the content of tweets. But by making what is in essence an editorial decision not to host a certain type of content, Twitter is rapidly blurring that line.

The network has not been as quick to involve itself when its users are sharing content far beyond what is even remotely acceptable – even when the profile of the incidents is high.


James Foley and the daily horrors of the internet: think hard before clicking | James Ball | Comment is free | theguardian.com

James Foley and the daily horrors of the internet: think hard before clicking | James Ball | Comment is free | theguardian.com.

Outcry over footage of Foley’s apparent beheading raises difficult questions about editorial ethics – and our own choices

 

 

James Foley in Syria in 2012
James Foley in 2012. In a statement on his Facebook page, his mother said: ‘We have never been prouder of our son Jim. He gave his life trying to expose the world to the suffering of the Syrian people.’ Photograph: Nicole Tung/AP

 

With depressing frequency in this summer of diverse horrors, we hear tales of desperate human misery, suffering and depravity – and because we live now in an era where virtually every phone is a globally connected camera, we are confronted with graphic evidence of tragedy.

 

The footage of the apparent beheading (to refer to the atrocity as an execution serves only to lend a veneer of dignity to barbarism) of the US photojournalist James Foley at the hands of a British Isis extremist has raised particularly strong feelings.

 

Social networks are banning users who share the footage. Newspapers are facing opprobrium for the choices they make in showing stills or parts of the video. Others, of course, will seek out the video after seeing the row, or else post it around the internet in a juvenile form of the free speech argument.

 

Before considering the rights and wrongs of the position, there is one fact we should face: we are presented with images of grotesque violence on a daily basis. Last month the New York Times ran on its front page the dead and broken body of a Palestinian child.

 

Like Foley, that child was someone’s son, someone’s brother, someone’s friend, and in a connected world there is just as much chance his family saw the photo and its spread as Foley’s will see the latest awful images of their loved one.

 

That photo raised little controversy in comparison to the use of images of Foley. Photos of groups of civilian men massacred by Isis across Iraq and Syria – widely shared on social media and used by publications across the world – caused no outcry whatsoever.

 

It’s hard to look at that and not see a double standard: like many other courageous and talented people, Foley had chosen to travel to the region, and knew the risks that entailed. Others were killed simply fleeing their homes. In a strange and bitter irony, one of the duties of photographers such as Foley is documenting bloodshed in order to show the world.

 

To see an outcry for Foley’s video and not for others is to wonder whether we are disproportionately concerned over showing graphic deaths of white westerners – maybe even white journalists – and not others.


What Happens to #Ferguson Affects Ferguson: — The Message — Medium

What Happens to #Ferguson Affects Ferguson: — The Message — Medium.

Net Neutrality, Algorithmic Filtering and Ferguson

View image on Twitter

Ferguson is about many things, starting first with race and policing in America.

But it’s also about internet, net neutrality and algorithmic filtering.

It’s a clear example of why “saving the Internet”, as it often phrased, is not an abstract issue of concern only to nerds, Silicon Valley bosses, and few NGOs. It’s why “algorithmic filtering” is not a vague concern.

It’s a clear example why net neutrality is a human rights issue; a free speech issue; and an issue of the voiceless being heard, on their own terms.

I saw this play out in multiple countries — my home country of Turkey included — but last night, it became even more heartbreakingly apparent in the United States as well.

For me, last night’s Ferguson “coverage” began when people started retweeting pictures of armored vehicles with heavily armored “robocops” on top of them, aiming their muzzle at the protesters, who seemed to number a few hundred. It was the fourth night after an unarmed black man, Michael Brown, was shot by a — still unnamed — police officer after a “jaywalking” incident. Witnesses say he died hands in the air, saying “don’t shoot”.

Ferguson is about many things, starting first with race and policing in America.

But it’s also about internet, net neutrality and algorithmic filtering.

It’s a clear example of why “saving the Internet”, as it often phrased, is not an abstract issue of concern only to nerds, Silicon Valley bosses, and few NGOs. It’s why “algorithmic filtering” is not a vague concern.

It’s a clear example why net neutrality is a human rights issue; a free speech issue; and an issue of the voiceless being heard, on their own terms.

I saw this play out in multiple countries — my home country of Turkey included — but last night, it became even more heartbreakingly apparent in the United States as well.

For me, last night’s Ferguson “coverage” began when people started retweeting pictures of armored vehicles with heavily armored “robocops” on top of them, aiming their muzzle at the protesters, who seemed to number a few hundred. It was the fourth night after an unarmed black man, Michael Brown, was shot by a — still unnamed — police officer after a “jaywalking” incident. Witnesses say he died hands in the air, saying “don’t shoot”.