From my perspective, this week's readings are filled with many idealistic demands that are far from materializing. I doubt that many disagree with the principles listed. It's how to materialize them that's the problem.

---

“We Make the Media - a Recent Speech at Freedom of Speech Online 2018” Ethan Zuckerman, 9 Dec. 2018.
https://ethanzuckerman.com/2018/12/09/we-make-the-media-a-recent-speech-at-freedom-of-speech-online-2018/

• Meta: This article felt like it covered many topics, due to it being a speech. It wish it was better organized in print form.
• The author makes a great point in the media has evolved, and isn't as static as we often see it to be. This makes sense, but I also understand why people feel powerless — it's because any one person's potential to cause that kind of change seems very slim.
• "4 P's: Personal control, Plural in purpose, Public in spirit, Participatory in governance"
• "LinkedIn doesn’t have much of a problem with hate speech"
• That's not true! I've seen plenty of hate speech on LinkedIn… comments from people using their real names, with their employer listed.

Kornbluh, Karen. “Three Steps to Help Treat America’s Debilitating Information Disorder.” Washington Post, The Washington Post, 13 Jan. 2021.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/13/three-steps-help-treat-americas-debilitating-information-disorder/

• "First, clarify that what happens online is subject to the same legal standards as what happens in real life, update regulations and increase enforcement."
• There's a lot to unpack in the word "same". In real life, you can shout "this is on fire" in a theater, or you can shout at a concert (referring to the song). These two utterances of the same expression have very different legal consequences. Which one should be applied to Twitter posts? A major problem with online platforms is that there's no context-dependent enforcement, but real-life policies are almost entirely context-dependent.
• "Second, insist that the industry make a high-level commitment to democratic design — a so-called digital code of conduct. Each platform should also make its own individual implementation commitments to which it will be held accountable. The code would be designed by the companies but overseen and enforced by the FTC, and any violation of the code would be enforced as a consumer protection violation."
• The problem is that the definition of what constitutes a "code of conduct" will vary. In fact, most online platforms can probably already claim that they have a code of conduct.
• Another problem is that if there is a need for unregulated content, users will go to the unregulated platforms if the main platforms become regulated. There's a joke about someone asking an ex to unblock them by writing that in the message of a Venmo payment. What constitutes a platform?
• If we are too lax about the definitions of "code of conduct" and "platform", then we end up with the current situation. If we are too strict, then we will inevitably stifle innovation.
• "Third, we should create a new “PBS of the Internet” to strengthen our civic infrastructure and ensure a strong online supply of trustworthy, nonpartisan scientific and election information."
• This also seems great in theory, but unfortunately is not concrete. Radio and TV were well suited to PBS, since the format and the limitation of the platforms were clear and stable. With the amount of technological progress we are currently making, this is not true for the Internet. A more apt Internet analog to PBS for TV/radio would be PBS of online video, PBS for podcasts, etc. And indeed, we have those already — PBS is on those platforms.
• "Next, there should be protocols to surface and prioritize authoritative information on digital platforms." This seems like a great suggestion, and related to my personal ideas for digital advancement. However, I want to point out that this is a new idea, and not something that PBSs of radio and TVs had. People know exactly which YouTube channel belongs to PBS, just as much as we know which radio frequency is PBS. The problem isn't that we can't tell which sources are official, the problem is that people don't trust the official sources.

“Opinion | the Coup We Are Not Talking About.” The New York Times, 2021.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/opinion/sunday/facebook-surveillance-society-technology.html

• "In an information civilization, societies are defined by questions of knowledge — how it is distributed, the authority that governs its distribution and the power that protects that authority. Who knows? Who decides who knows? Who decides who decides who knows? Surveillance capitalists now hold the answers to each question, though we never elected them to govern. This is the essence of the epistemic coup."
• I took some time to think about why we're in an age where information is currency. Previously, materials and labor had value. Capitalism and economies of scale have now made materials and labor relatively cheap, relative to information.
• Similarly to how capitalism of materials and labor needs to be checked, we should probably have checks on the capitalism of control, information, and surveillance. Facebook and Twitter currently run the equivalent of the Capitol and the Federal Reserve, but for information. With this analogy applied, it easily follows that they perhaps should be regulated.
• Today I learned: Epistemic injustice — injustice related to knowledge.