Technology

2349 readers
1 users here now

Post articles or questions about technology

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1
 
 

A week after Elon Musk’s Grok dubbed itself “MechaHitler” and spewed antisemitic stereotypes, the US government has announced a new contract granting the chatbot’s creator, xAI, up to $200 million to modernize the Defense Department.

xAI is one of several leading AI companies to receive the award, alongside Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI. But the timing of the announcement is striking given Grok’s recent high-profile spiral, which drew congressional ire and public pushback. The use of technology, and especially AI, in the defense space has long been a controversial topic even within the tech industry, and Musk’s prior involvement in slashing federal government contracts through his work at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) still raises questions about potential conflicts — though his relationship with President Donald Trump has more recently soured, and Trump’s administration has claimed Musk would step back from any potential conflicts while at DOGE.

2
3
4
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/38368016

Designing more and better platforms to support democracy can be an antidote to the wave of global autocracy that is increasingly bolstered by tech platforms that tighten public control.

Op-ed by Lisa Schirch, Professor of the Practice of Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame, Paris, France.

[...]

Democracy is in crisis globally, and technology is playing a role. Most large platforms optimize their designs for profit, not community or democracy. Increasingly, Big Tech is siding with autocrats, and the platforms’ designs help keep society under control.

[...]

A handful of tech billionaires dominate the global information ecosystem. Without public accountability or oversight, they determine what news shows up on your feed and what data they collect and share.

[...]

Tech companies design platforms based on extensive psychological research. Examples include flashing notifications that make your phone jump and squeak, colorful rewards when others like your posts, and algorithms that push out the most emotional content to stimulate your most base emotions of anger, shame or glee.

[...]

A techno-autocracy is a political system where an authoritarian government uses technology to control its population. Techno-autocrats spread disinformation and propaganda, using fear tactics to demonize others and distract from corruption. They leverage massive amounts of data, artificial intelligence and surveillance to censor opponents.

For example, China uses technology to monitor and surveil its population with public cameras. Chinese platforms like WeChat and Weibo automatically scan, block or delete messages and posts for sensitive words like “freedom of speech.” Russia promotes domestic platforms like VK that are closely monitored and partly owned by state-linked entities that use it to promote political propaganda.

Over a decade ago, tech billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, and now Vice President JD Vance, began aligning with far-right political philosophers like Curtis Yarvin. They argue that democracy impedes innovation, favoring concentrated decision-making in corporate-controlled mini-states governed through surveillance. Embracing this philosophy of techno-autocracy, they moved from funding and designing the internet to reshaping government.

Techno-autocrats weaponize social media platforms as part of their plan to dismantle democratic institutions.

The political capture of both X and Meta also have consequences for global security. At Meta, Mark Zuckerberg removed barriers to right-wing propaganda and openly endorsed President Donald Trump’s agenda. Musk changed X’s algorithm to highlight right-wing content, including Russian propaganda.

Designing tech for democracy

Recognizing the power that platform design has on society, some companies are designing new civic participation platforms that support rather than undermine society’s access to verified information and places for public deliberation.

[...]

In 2014, a group of technologists founded Pol.is, an open-source technology for hosting public deliberation that leverages data science. Pol.is enables participants to propose and vote on policy ideas using what they call “computational democracy.” [...] People participate anonymously, helping to keep the focus on the issues and not the people.

[...]

Taiwan used the Pol.is platform to enable mass civic engagement in the 2014 democracy movement. The U.K. government’s Collective Intelligence Lab used the platform to generate public discussion and generate new policy proposals on climate and health care policies. In Finland, a public foundation called Sitra uses Pol.is in its “What do you think, Finland?” public dialogues.

Barcelona, Spain, designed a new participatory democracy platform called Decidim in 2017. Now used throughout Spain and Europe, Decidim enables citizens to collaboratively propose, debate and decide on public policies and budgets through transparent digital processes.

Nobel Peace Laureate Maria Ressa founded Rappler Communities in 2023, a social network in the Philippines that combines journalism, community and technology. It aims to restore trust in institutions by providing safe spaces for exchanging ideas and connecting with neighbors, journalists and civil society groups.

[...]

In 2024, the Alliance for Middle East Peace began using Remesh.ai, an AI-based platform, to find areas of common ground between Israelis and Palestinians in order to advance the idea of a public peace process and identify elements of a ceasefire agreement.

[...]

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
 
 

Never go back to Crapcast if you can avoid it, fuck em

18
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/37546476

Archived

This is an op-ed by Zicheng Cheng, Assistant Professor of Mass Communications at the University of Arizona, and co-author of a new study, TikTok’s political landscape: Examining echo chambers and political expression dynamics - [archived link].

[...]

Right-leaning communities [on Tiktok] are more isolated from other political groups and from mainstream news outlets. Looking at their internal structures, the right-leaning communities are more tightly connected than their left-leaning counterparts. In other words, conservative TikTok users tend to stick together. They rarely follow accounts with opposing views or mainstream media accounts. Liberal users, on the other hand, are more likely to follow a mix of accounts, including those they might disagree with.

[...]

We found that users with stronger political leanings and those who get more likes and comments on their videos are more motivated to keep posting. This shows the power of partisanship, but also the power of TikTok’s social rewards system. Engagement signals – likes, shares, comments – are like a fuel, encouraging users to create even more.

[...]

The content on TikTok often comes from creators and influencers or digital-native media sources. The quality of this news content remains uncertain. Without access to balanced, fact-based information, people may struggle to make informed political decisions.

[...]

It’s encouraging to see people participate in politics through TikTok when that’s their medium of choice. However, if a user’s network is closed and homogeneous and their expression serves as in-group validation, it may further solidify the political echo chamber.

[...]

When people are exposed to one-sided messages, it can increase hostility toward outgroups. In the long run, relying on TikTok as a source for political information might deepen people’s political views and contribute to greater polarization.

[...]

Echo chambers have been widely studied on platforms like Twitter and Facebook, but similar research on TikTok is in its infancy. TikTok is drawing scrutiny, particularly its role in news production, political messaging and social movements.

[...]

19
 
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/37545879

Archived

Brazil’s Supreme Court agreed on Thursday on details of a decision to hold social media companies liable for what their users post, clearing the way for it go into effect within weeks.

The 8-3 vote in Brazil’s top court orders tech giants like Google, Meta and TikTok to actively monitor content that involves hate speech, racism and incitation to violence and act to remove it.

The case has unsettled the relationship between the South American nation and the U.S. government. Critics have expressed concern that the move could threaten free speech if platforms preemptively remove content that could be problematic.

After Thursday’s ruling is published by the court, people will be able to sue social media companies for hosting illegal content if they refuse to remove it after a victim brings it to their attention. The court didn’t set out firm rules on what content is illegal, leaving it to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The ruling strengthens a law that requires companies to remove content only after court orders, which were often ignored.

[...]

20
21
22
23
24
25
view more: next ›