Aullidos digitales Revista Qué Pasa

De un tiempo a esta parte he bajado mi voyerismo de Twitter, partiendo por eliminar muchas cuentas que seguía que me generaban más ruido interno que ventanas informativas. Menos es quizás más y eliminé unas ochocientas de un tirón. Algunos de los primeros expulsados fueron aquellos que retuitean otras cuentas de manera compulsiva. No he sido un gran participante de Twitter en el sentido que no debato ni lanzo comentarios (a veces lo uso como una suerte de herramienta de relaciones públicas), pero antes -lo reconozco- me gustaba mirar, seguir a algunos, pelar, exasperarme y sapear. Ya no.

Fuente: Aullidos digitales Revista Qué Pasa


The stench of the Iraq war lingers behind today’s preoccupation with fake news | Jeff Sparrow | Opinion | The Guardian

If world leaders can deceive voters about the greatest foreign policy debacle in a generation, why should a president today worry about casually lying about the crowds at his inauguration?

Fuente: The stench of the Iraq war lingers behind today’s preoccupation with fake news | Jeff Sparrow | Opinion | The Guardian


The Guardian’s Summary of Julian Assange’s Interview Went Viral and Was Completely False

one’s views of Assange are completely irrelevant to this article, which is not about Assange. This article, instead, is about a report published this week by The Guardian that recklessly attributed to Assange comments that he did not make. This article is about how those false claims — fabrications, really — were spread all over the internet by journalists, causing hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) to consume false news. The purpose of this article is to underscore, yet again, that those who most flamboyantly denounce Fake News, and want Facebook and other tech giants to suppress content in the name of combating it, are often the most aggressive and self-serving perpetrators of it.

Fuente: The Guardian’s Summary of Julian Assange’s Interview Went Viral and Was Completely False


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


A day with Facebook’s trending topics: celebrity birthdays and Pokémon Go | Technology | The Guardian

From a hurricane to Brock Turner’s release, a lot happened last week. But Facebook calculated that a celebrity losing some weight was more important

Fuente: A day with Facebook’s trending topics: celebrity birthdays and Pokémon Go | Technology | The Guardian


Quisiera compartir algunas reflexiones, que he…

Quisiera compartir algunas reflexiones, que he ido madurando luego de un año de trabajar en temas relacionados con el análisis de redes sociales (“social network analysis”). Actualmente estamos presenciando una emergente odiosidad del trollero desinformado: miles de adictos a las redes sociales que comentan de todo, que ansían convertirse en líderes de opinión, sumándose a los comentarios clichés promovidos por el “mass media”, sin fomentar el diálogo ni tener un verdadero espíritu crítico, sin leer libros

Fuente: Fabián Farisori – Quisiera compartir algunas reflexiones, que he…


Technology comes to the rescue in migrant crisis – FT.com

Funzi.mobi informs migrants about Finnish rules and attitudes towards sexuality, Refugeesonrails.org distributes donated laptops and teaches migrants programming so they can land a dream job, and Refugees-Welcome.net is a kind of Airbnb for migrants,

Fuente: Technology comes to the rescue in migrant crisis – FT.com


Curatoría Automática: ¡Fuera de mi timeline! | Manzana Mecánica

Curatoría Automática: ¡Fuera de mi timeline! | Manzana Mecánica.

Cuando la noticia de que twitter estaba pensando en implementar algoritmos de recomendación para el timeline de sus usuarios y los comentarios negativos frente a esta medida empezaron a ver la luz, recordé algunos casos recientes en los que se analizaba el rol de la curatoría automática de contenidos.
Las plataformas de contenido utilizan sistemas de recomendación para asegurar que sus usuarios tengan a la mano cosas que les interesen. Es una de las formas más poderosas de asegurar continuidad en el consumo y creación de información.

Desde la sencilla recomendación de noticias similares a las que ya leíste, hasta la creación de shows completos en base a las preferencias más comunes de la audiencia, la recomendación automática es una de las experiencias más comunes en el uso de la Web.

Facebook por ejemplo utiliza las recomendaciones para priorizar noticias y sugerir cosas que te pueden gustar. Ahora, tal y como lo demostró un periodista recientemente, darle me gusta a todo lo que aparece en la pantalla provocará que recibas solamente noticias de entretención ligera (y no me refiero a artículos de Manzana Mecánica como el que estás leyendo, si no que “noticias” del tipo ¿Qué personaje de la película Titanic eres?) .


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.”