The Blog Experiment | Technology Nonsense and Internet Tripe

Contextual advertising might soon rival or even surpass behavioral advertising’s harms unless policy makers intervene, says Katharina Kopp. Shutterstock Contextual advertising is said to be privacy-safe because it eliminates the need for cookies, third-party trackers, and the processing of other personal data. Marketers and policy makers are placing much stock in the future of contextual advertising, viewing it as the solution to the privacy-invasive targeted advertising that heavily relies on personal data.  However, the current state of contextual advertising does not look anything like our plain understanding of it in contrast to today’s dominant mode of behavioral advertising: placing ads next to preferred content, based on keyword inclusion or exclusion. Instead, industry practices are moving towards incorporating advanced AI analysis of content and its classification, user-level data, and insights into content preferences of online visitors, all while still referring to “contextual advertising.” It is crucial for policymakers to carefully examine this rapidly evolving space and establish a clear definition of what “contextual advertising” should entail. This will prevent the emergence of toxic practices and outcomes, similar to what we have witnessed with surveillance-based behavioral marketing, from becoming the new normal.  Let’s recall the reasons for the strong opposition to surveillance-based marketing practices so we can avoid those harms regarding contextual advertising. Simply put, the two main reasons are privacy harms and harms from manipulation. Behavioral advertising is deeply invasive when it comes to privacy, as it involves tracking users online and creating individual profiles based on their behavior over time…Is So-Called Contextual Advertising the Cure to Surveillance-Based “Behavioral” Advertising?

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In the wake of a political maelstrom sparked by his congratulatory applause for a World War II veteran who had served the Nazis, Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, did what many modern day politicians do – deflect and tell the public to be aware of “disinformation.” Despite sidestepping Parliament’s Question Period, Trudeau finally broke his silence when cornered by reporters. “Obviously, it’s extremely upsetting that this happened,” an equally perturbed and embarrassed Trudeau expressed, asserting the predicament as “deeply embarrassing to the Parliament of Canada and by extension to all Canadians.” https://video.reclaimthenet.org/articles/trudeau-disinfo.mp4 The lightning-rod figure at the center of this controversy is 98-year-old Yaroslav Hunka, an affiliate of the Nazi Waffen SS. A guest of the Canadian Parliament and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Hunka’s ties to the abominable regime were overlooked, leading to two raucous standing ovations, leaving observers the world over bewildered and aghast, none more so than members of the Jewish community commemorating Yom Kippur. Trudeau sought to deflect the blame by pointing toward an entirely unrelated issue: the alleged threat of Russian disinformation. Trudeau’s references to Russian disinformation, rather than accepting the blunder of honoring Hunka, provide a significant blow to anti-censorship and free speech, as they set a precedent of ignoring direct responsibility in favor of an equivocal scapegoat. Critics of Trudeau, including Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, sense Trudeau’s ploy and demand he take personal responsibility. Poilievre asserts Hunka’s honoring…Trudeau Deflects After Honoring Nazi in Parliament, Warns of Russian Disinformation

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The idea of a pandemic was just recently seared into everybody’s minds (rightly so, given the level of disruption caused by the reaction to Covid at personal/business/national level) – and now, building on that state of fear – we have a neologism to contend with. “Infodemic.” It’s when saying something is a “pandemic” is just not good enough. And, when you want to be able to target multiple policies/media/persons at the same time. Reports are already cropping up where this made-up word, “infodemic,” is used as if it means something. No quotes around it, either – and there’s talk about “managing” the situation, the way “global policymakers” -i.e., the WHO treaty negotiators – now see it. Opponents will say that the UN agency has simply decided to play on the element of intimidation and fear here, by featuring the phrase front-and-center in its recent initiatives. The most prominent one at this time, of course, is the WHO’s pandemic treaty/accord. It calls for pretty much everybody – to “take action.” Without ever really going into explaining exactly what the previous pandemic was, how it was handled (justly or not so), whence it originated, and why – the UN’s WHO (World Health Organization) is now “preparing for the next one.” Yet this is not a board game – billions of people’s well-being and livelihoods are supposed to depend on it, going forward. But now, let’s take…WHO Treaty Negotiators Call For Governments and Big Tech To Tackle “Infodemics,” and “Misinformation”

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A renewed scrutiny over the deployment of facial recognition technology by law enforcement arises as an innocent man, misidentified and subsequently incarcerated because of it, has brought forth a lawsuit. This event underscores the ever-evolving tensions between advancing technology and personal privacy, augmented by implications for civil liberties and freedom of speech. Randal Quran Reid, a 29-year-old man more commonly known by his middle name, Quran, was driving to his mother’s residence post-Thanksgiving when police stopped and arrested him on a Georgia interstate. Much to his chagrin, Quran learned he was a suspect for crimes in Louisiana – a state he had never even visited, AP reported. Held in custody for multiple days, this mishap isn’t unique to Quran. At least four other individuals, including a woman eight months into her pregnancy falsely accused of carjacking, have filed lawsuits against law enforcement for being erroneously identified and arrested due to the controversial technology. Despite the potential benefits of facial recognition in solving criminal cases, tracking missing persons, and identifying victims of human trafficking, critics argue it poses grave concerns for both civil liberties and privacy. Of all the arguments against it, allegations of racial bias stand at the forefront of the technology. Designed to match surveillance footage with potential profiles from government databases or social media, facial recognition, however, can often result in false positives. In an affidavit requesting Quran’s arrest warrant, the detective…The Number of People Arrested After Facial Recognition Errors Is Growing

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. There was a time when Brazil was considered to have had some of the finest diplomats serving their country and the UN as representatives of the world organization, around the world. Their mission was to mediate in real crises and armed conflicts. Certainly – it was not to serve any one group of countries’ political or ideological interest, and certainly, not to stray from UN’s original mission into some “pandemic/infodemic” weeds. But those times are gone, and now, we have this: Tovar da Silva Nunes (that’s Brazil’s representative to the UN and a member of the group negotiating the WHO pandemic treaty), effectively advocating for worldwide authoritarianism. On healthcare issues, at least. Nunes has the distinction of being cited in reports as calling for (what is considered) dissemination of false health information and medical interventions being treated as “a possible criminal offense.” Not the bravest of the bunch, our “brave new world warriors” – so note the “possible” qualifier. Still, Nunes is putting this outrageous notion out there for the world to consider, and/or get used to. This disastrous showing for the country’s diplomacy emerged from the UN General Assembly sessions, specifically, the meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response, held last week in New York City. The meeting was called in order to “finalize” the Pandemic Accord or Treaty, that will be globally enforceable. Or so its enforcers hope. Those behind the proposal…Brazil’s UN Representative: “Dissemination of False Information Regarding Health Matters Constitutes…a Possible Criminal Offense”

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Amazon, the e-commerce and web services titan, is under legal scrutiny again as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) unleashes an antitrust lawsuit upon it. The suit, a clear warning shot fired from the FTC, places Amazon in the crosshairs; an unavoidable consequence of unresolved antitrust concerns within the company’s online marketplace. The legal action poses significant implications for Amazon and may very well define the e-commerce industry’s trajectory in years to come. We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here. Amazon’s marketplace – an online hub where third-party sellers can do business – is the charge’s primary focus. Controversy has swirled around this digital marketplace in recent times, as concerns about Amazon’s controlling and potentially monopolistic behavior have come to the forefront. Many vendors who sell their wares on Amazon’s platform have expressed dissatisfaction, claiming the marketplace is biased and rigged in Amazon’s favor. They argue that Amazon can manipulate the platform to undermine competitors and promote its own products, inundating consumers with Amazon-branded goods at the expense of smaller sellers. The lawsuit promises to shake up the e-commerce landscape and possibly level the playing field. If the FTC’s case against Amazon proves successful, it could prompt comprehensive industry reviews and pave the way for more intense regulations in an attempt to curtail monopolistic behavior. While the legal battle looms on the horizon, this development is undeniably another blemish on the tech…FTC Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon

Audio and video calls on X, formerly Twitter, won’t be for everyone — just paying X Premium subscribers.Video and audio calls on X, formerly Twitter, will be for paying subscribers only

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. On the brink of implementing Humza Yousaf’s highly contentious legislation early next year, a specialized hate crime unit has been announced by Police Scotland. With the unit scheduled to be operational by November, a comprehensive training of about 16,400 law enforcement officers will follow in December. This is all in anticipation of the Hate Crime and Public Order Act, expected to be ratified early in 2024. This Act expands upon the existing law, offering a broader protective net for “vulnerable” groups and introduces the notion of “stirring up hatred.” However, some critics and free speech advocates have raised concerns that the Act, which holds potential to elevate sentencing if prejudice is based on factors such as age, race, disability, religion, transgender identity or variations in sex characteristics, may invigorate the increasingly toxic culture wars surrounding gender issues. It is posited that the law may sidetrack police resources from tackling violent conduct to address “harmful” words. The thought of free speech being stifled by the new laws is particularly horrifying for some, with warnings that women’s rights advocates may find themselves entangled in allegations of transphobia. Critics argue that a significant portion of police time may now be geared towards a subjective concept of hate crime, such as “misgendering,” instead of dealing with tangible violent acts. Helen Joyce, part of the human rights group Sex Matters, asserted her alarm at the creation of this specific…Scotland To Set Up New Police Unit To Tackle “Hate” and “Misgendering,” Ignites Free Speech Concerns

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The cold grip of censorship threat has finally lost its hold on military hero and doctor, Colonel Dr. Kelvin Wright, vindicating his freedom to express deeply held beliefs about gender. The esteemed Army veteran, known for his life saving efforts during his tour in Afghanistan, was subjected to rigorous disciplinary proceedings following a complaint lodged by a junior officer about the content Wright had shared on Facebook. The shared item, a quote attributed to Helen Joyce, the director of the campaign group Sex Matters, stated, “If women cannot stand in a public place and say ‘men cannot be women,’ then we do not have women’s rights at all.” The provocatively unjust label placed on Joyce by the aforementioned investigating officer had been riddled with erroneous declarations, stating incorrectly that Joyce perceived “every trans person is a problem… and needs to be dealt with.” Disputing these claims, Joyce stated assertively, “This person wants to paint me as genocidal. Trans people should be treated well.” The charge against Wright found further fuel when it was alleged he held biases that led to the banning of pronoun badges from uniforms, while another complaint bizarrely stemmed from his wife’s personal opinion about a popular dance show. In an dismissal of censorship and an enduring testament to freedom of speech, the inquiry’s findings boldly exonerated Wright’s actions, declaring his right to express his beliefs. Echoing this sentiment, the Free…British Army Doctor Punished For Agreeing With The Idea That Men Can’t Be Women Is Cleared

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In a bid to stand up for freedom of speech, Australian free-to-air broadcast networks have raised criticisms about a proposed legislation aimed at combating so-called “misinformation.” The targets of controversy are the bill’s nebulous definitions of harm, potential violations of freedom of expression, and the risk of content censorship by social media platforms complying with government-imposed obligations. The focal point of the dispute is drawn from the quote by Free TV which expressed concerns, similar to the Australian Human Rights Commission and various legal authorities. They pointed out that the suggested definition of “harm” is “harm to the health of Australians” and “disruption of public order,” allowing for room for misunderstanding and misuse, and potentially threatening freedom of expression on governmental and political matters. This legislation hands over a wide range of new powers to ACMA, which includes the enforcement of an industry-wide “standard” that will obligate digital platforms to remove what they determine as misinformation or disinformation. The punitive response for non-compliance is a harsh fine of up to $6.88 million or up to 5% of the company’s global turnover, whichever is greater. Meanwhile, Free TV has ardently championed a total dismissal of all free-to-air content from the potential law, The Sydney Morning Herald reported. The opposing side includes The Greens, who may have a substantial influence if the laws pass the Senate. They argue against giving exemption to news content, pointing fingers…TV Networks Join The Pushback Against Australia’s Proposed Anti-“Misinformation” Law