Hackpads are smart collaborative documents. .

Willow Brugh

739 days ago
Unfiled. Edited by Jack Cushman , Willow Brugh , Tiffany Lin , lfrm 739 days ago
Jack C Sara Watson Fellows Hour, 11/10/15
Willow B Icebreaker
question: What technology do you love to hate?
 
Jack C Uber, LinkedIn, Google Docs, iPhone, Apple products in general for being silver, Twitter, Facebook, StayFocused, indoor plumbing, the MBTA, contact lenses, Skype/Google Hangouts/web conferencing software, Medium, VR that makes you dizzy, smartphones, digital cameras, Oculus Rift, printers (2d and 3d), digital communication ...
 
Willow B
  • Constructive Technology Criticism
Sara is looking for:
  • Want feedback from academics -- have you thought of this or that?
  • Hopes some of this will influence how you think about your relationship to technology.
Technology Criticism
What does that mean? Who comes to mind? What sorts of coverage do you think of?
  • Luddites
  • Nick Bellton (NYT)
  • Nick Carr
  • Chris Burr (MIT library)
  • David Eggers - fiction
  • Tech podcasting. Leo Laporte.
  • Voldemort // Morozov
  • Diffusion of technology
  • Sara Watson
  • STS (Science Technology Studies) Lewis Mumford? Susan Leigh Star, etc -- from Battles
  • Sherry Turkle
  • ValleyWag to academic studies. Both sides of the spectrum are pretty critical.
  • Technology is frightening and killing the world. Like Daily Mail saying something atrocious happened, and some small part of it is about facebook
  • Also about consumer framing. Like a movie critic -- what is worth going to see? Journalism vs press release. David Pogue / Walt Mossberg. (Film critic vs movie critic, game review vs Anita Sarkeesian)
Jack C
  • Apologists/utopists vs luddites/reflexive critics
  • Tech criticism as cultural criticism -- the Baffler.
Willow B
  • Critical design
lfrm
  • Critical Making
Willow B
  • James Bridle
  • Theorizing the Web crew
Tiffany L
  • Alexis Madrigal - grounding tech commentary/crit in history
 
Willow B Wants these groups to talk to each other more. Talk about the important questions, but without writing in such a way that the system doesn't even want to hear about it.
 
Relationship critic has with their audience and the thing they're criticising. Critics who are on your side versus not on your side (Republican critique of Obama, versus Marco Arment on Apple because he's invested in the space). He also has authority.
 
Gap in expertise and what's coming out. Naseem Taleb writes about crises being unassociated with what we know.
Experts are rarely good at taking the view of the user.
 
Different kinds of criticism:
  • Fan - loves it, wants it to succeed
  • NYT - grey lady saying you should feel this way about this
  • Authorities - people speaking from deep technical knowledge. Doesn't make us better at telling you how to feel
  • taking the view of the user - food critic etc.
  • advocate - walk in with a position, a conversation they want to have, informed by the thing they're criticising.
Looking for an interdisciplinary approach -- grey lady authority. 
 
A lot of tech won't work unless we're all using it. We don't ahve a voice as users or critics because of this. Mirroring the poverty of choices. Monoculture. We're all going to use it or reject it.
 
Goals
  • How to get beyond negative connotation
  • Grounding in history
  • field defining- carve out a space and a practice of technology criticism
  • elevating those already doing it
  • affect popular discourse on how we talk about technology
 
Research Q's
Willow B
  • Can you look at articles which are dichotomous vs nuanced, and how far they spread/impact?
  • Can we show what articles about tech are actually about a preexisting debate?
  • what are language indicators (if any) of a particular stance?  - Rey
 
Tiffany L How are pubs covering tech + society qs in publishing today -- > NYT
What limitations of publishing today constrain the discourse?
What can we learn from theorists and critics writing about the culture impacts of tech in the past?
  • Can we have some history in how we cover technology in mind? 
What can we transfer from academic studies of tech into journalism and public discourse? 
 
Willow B Progress narrative // moral panic binary. Is this a problem of journalism more generally, or is this the technology itself?
 
Tiffany L Reading List
Willow B Classify by discipline (or at least background) -- then see where things overlap.
Interesting to expand the bibliography to include tech reviews. Digital humanities toolkit. Topic modeling. Look for patterns in large textual corpera. "How is technology talked about among tech critics, scholars, etc?"
 
Seperation between authority and commentary. Bruce's post on HeartBleed versus jsut about anyone else's.
People speak about historical technology in a strange way, too.
Journalists are really bad at thinking about their audience.
Tiffany L Technology is not going to stay its own "thing" for much longer. How we understand and see tech is quite different from the 15-16 year olds view (who in a decade will be the decision makers)
 
Willow B George Ritzer.
 
Theory of Change?
What would the strong outcome be for you? I spend a lot of time thinking about moral hazards. People who write about cybersecurity in a naive way, and are powerful and listened to. Powerful, English Language Western discourses. What is the scope? What would you want to see journalists adopt?
  • Trying to see constructive technology criticism. Not just picking apart, but offering a solution. 
  • Not just a power structure of media (not everyone is a critic), those publications have a responsibility to push back and ask questions, because they are the ones that google facebook etc will listen to. Impetus to ask them to answer these questions in useful ways. 
Who makes the change? What sorts of criticism prompts change? Can have it coming from consumers or from management or etc. Different actors have different criticism-listening activities. 
 
Tiffany L 4(5) types of critics
  • Fan
  • NYT
  • ? Critics who takes the POV of the user (e.g. food critic)
  • Actual authority (e.g. the Schneiers of the world) 
 
...
900 days ago
Unfiled. Edited by Matthew Battles , Willow Brugh 900 days ago
Matthew B Freedom for Kazakhstan
 
Willow B
  1. Employ Mel Gibson to shout things.
Matthew B
  1. End the head lice epidemic NOW
Willow B
  1. Profit.
 
Business
Yes. A bit.
Give grants/make space for digital endeavors. Hold online competitions which require people to coordinate online.
Host things encrypted (coersion-resistent design)
 
Civil Society and Users
Wait for a few years before being activisty. Gain legitimacy and footing and THEN placing on teh global stage.
All regimes are mixed regimes. Show investment in long-term change. Be unthreatening. THEN STRIKE.
 
Media
Matthew B Use the Internet to incorporate local perspectives and provide whatever degree of participation in civil discourse is permissible and normative—while pushing at those margins where it seems possible to do so.
 
Willow B Local Government
Try to be transparent about what you're allowed to be transparent about. Do it for the sake of incorporating more people (doing more for less cost).
Invest in campaigns to end head lice. And also honest expressions of healthy sexuality.
Host things encrypted (coersion-resistent design)
 
International Organizations
Matthew B Find ways to increase global knowledge of Kazakhstan so we can sit in the Berkman conference room and opine knowledgeably.
 
921 days ago
Tim D Focused conversations on Internet Policy issues 
 
Willow B
  • Surviellance
Facts! 
Tim D
  • Legislative change to authorize surveillance
  • There is a history of combatting Surveillance
Willow B
  • There has been legalized / legistimized surveillance for ages, especially for marginalized communities such as welfare mothers and those in low income housing.
Tim D
  • There are more services in the market for surveillance: there are more cameras out there than ever before
  • Information doesn't exist in a silo - not just what government is doing now, about what might happen in future.
  • Legislative bodies not even aware of all the information they should have
  • Surveillance doesn't work at catching "baddies"
Willow B
  • This sort of surveillence is new.
Tim D
  • Surveillance is a long-standing problem
  • SORM System - all Russian companies required by law to install surveillance equipment 
Willow B
  • Terrorism/fear of terrorism is a major legitimizer
  • Multi-national campaign to de-legitimize anonymity is part of legitimizing mass surveillance.
  • Attempts to get rid of encryption wholesale
  • Cryptowar is back
Tim D
  • Security cameras are not neccessarily secure - easily accessible
  • The risks are not only from government
  • Public discussion of surveillance and immigration not linked 
Willow B
  • Surviellance is asymmetrical. It now extends to more people than it did previously.
  • There is transnational collaboration amongst secret services. "we don't spy on our own citizens" but there's exchanging of data
Tim D
  • There is much more surveillaince in the workplace, and is now considered to be part of the employment contract -- at least in the U.S. 
  • Most controversial articles of Marco Civil is Article 15 -stating that logs must be kept for period of 6 months for ISPs
  • Data retention was ruled illegal in EU because unlimited, but as limited length - it can be allow, and reasonable
Willow B
  • Network effects are a thing.
  • Small staff in UK to combat this.
 
Willow B Question:
  • What is the history of surveillance for immigrant populations?
 
 
How do we feel about this?
Tim D
  • I feel like lighting everything on fire
Willow B
  • Critical time (esp in Europe) where many deicisons are being made which will be diffiult to overturn, rather than to prevent. IF ONLY WE HAD AN OPERATING PUBLIC SPACE. 
  • Wherever you go, there might be cameras! Careful about what we say and do.
  • Creative acts of disobedience
  • Using the cameras as product placement for street vendors in Brazil
  • Concern that retroactively there has been protection of intelligence agencies. Legislation ends up providing cover rather than regulating.
Tim D
  • Sigh
Willow B
  • Short term has been terrible. Longer term (Church) is better.
  • ACLU against Clapper ruled that collection of phone data not ok. After ~35 times approved by intelligence court.
  • Excitement of review of Patriot Act! And people care! Holy shit!
  • Average folk don't internalize the fear like folk around this table do.
  • We have some victories, seeing oversight balance. Are we in the 1% corner, or balancing things out 50/50?
  • Don't know how to fight this from a minority position.
  • Do you see this as irrevocably linked to a liberal/conservative divide?
  • The Right goes for this straight away, at least in the UK
  • In the US, the Libertarians are the ones saying this sucks.
  • Seeing a lot of internet governance in resonance with the left, a shift to the radical left.
Tim D
  • Sense of hopelessness and disenfranchisement - growing belief that people can't change anything any more anyway
  • There are things we can learn from the communities who have been under surveillance a lot longer than we have: low income mothers, etc. people with ways of fighting from a minority position.
 
Willow B What does our gut reaction tell us?
Tim D
  • Really glad all these agencies suck at analysis
  • There are opportunities to learn from other country contexts & other local contexts
Willow B
  • We can only see links and clues when looking back
Tim D
  • What you are leaning to do - and what is easier and harder - scan, improve access and analysis. 
  • Let's record everything now, and lets work out what/how to access later
Willow B
  • Need alternative narratives, and we don't have those.
  • People do have legitimate security fears.
  • What happens when/if mass surveillance does start working well?
  • Should incorporate rights at its heart.
Tim D
  • Germany: Boston bombing prevented in Frankfurt. 
 
What can we do?
Luis R
  • Workshopping anti-surveillance technology
Willow B
  • Is there some way of getting oversights? Surveillance should be more open! Transparency on what is going on. National Security shouldn't be a bracket when you have open government and Freedom of Information
  • Get better at encryption / increase the cost of surveillance!
Luis R
  • Attend to "cultural protocols" and question different understandings of openness, transparency, and privacy:
  • that is, bring up different cultural understandings of what personhood is and what is the nature of social ties (what can/should be preserved and kept private, what is in the realm of the public? the differences are striking across cultures...) 
Willow B
  • Visualization of cell phone data to show the depth and breadth of data
  • Show it's not just government, it's also companies that have all that data
Tim D
  • Not cut corners in disaster and humanitarian response: don't use look at the data, ask people what is going on. 
  • Identifying personal principles of non-surveillance
  • Walk away from certain situations: government monitoring of funded projects
  • Sharing different organisational styles across borders: how are these different from model in other countries, and how could they be imitated? 
Willow B
  • Find individuals who can financially support!
 
Tim D
  • Other issues
1) Taking advantage of transparency for anti-corruption: but keeping reforms going, too +1
2) China: the great firewall as a tool of attack+3
3) Building out a balkanised Internet in Tanzania/Africa +1
4) Changing Massachusetts public records law+2
5) Patriot act expiry
7) European privacy legislaition
8) Anti-stress laws +3
9) Biometrics for election
11) Open standards in (UK | Brazil) +3
12) Transnational institutions and multi-stakeholder governance +1
13) Federal student data privacy act
 
Willow B
  • China: the great firewall as a tool of attack
Facts!
Tim D
  • For many years - maybe 20 years - China has blocked outgoing traffic to websites it does not want citizens to read
Willow B
  • JZ's work was in figuring out what was being blocked (VPN, see what works and what doesn't).
...
949 days ago
Unfiled. Edited by Monica B , Willow Brugh 949 days ago
Monica B Social Science & the Internet
 
Intro questions: 
1) Which important questions/problems of Internet and Social media should be addressed by psychologists and social scientists (edu, digital aggression, children in internet, online movements, etc)
 
2) Where can there be a link found between psychology (social sciences) and tech? Which projects psychologists and tech people could collaborate on? how might social scientists contribute to tech progress?
 
Studies
 
"The New Internet Virus -Facebook Depression?" by Nguyen, Wickham, Acitelli
 
"Facebook use linked to depressive symptoms: technological advances with unintended consequences," by Steers
 
"Social Network use and Need for Cognition" by Zhong, Hardin, Sun
 
"Cognitive effects of social media multitasking," by Ophira, Nass, Wagner
journalistsresource.org/studies/society/social-media/multitasking-social-media-distraction-what-does-research-say
 
Willow B Why do people use social Media?
Hofmann, 2012.
 
Willow B Role of Facebook in Satisfying Psychological and Social needs
Ferrell, Riggin, Montgomery, Limke
Willow B People who feel more lonely login to facebook faster.
Car reparking - move faster when the incoming car was nicer.
 
Predicting personality with Facebook
MSFT Research, Uni of Cambridge
 
Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and facebook usage. 
Willow B Ryan and Xenos. Those off facebook have smaller, more intimate networks. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563211000379
 
Facebook Ego Boost by Gonzales and Hancock.
See yourself as an ideal self. Photoshop, tiny lies. Or just a really good picture of you.
 
Willow B Facebook use and narcissism 
by Carpenter 2012
Contant updating, friending people they don't know, etc... rate higher as actual narcissists. Love getting likes, but don't like liking other people's posts.
 
Willow B Personality and Facebook Posting Behaviors
Seidman
neurotic users use facebook more cautiously, surprising no one.
 
Exporing Facebok Behavior and Personality
 
  • Effects on Relationships
Building social capital: click to connect
Sheldon, 2011
 
Facebook: Friends with Benefits?
Laye, Walters, Kucukbu...
 
Jealousy in Facebook
 
Facebook Stalking: Anther way to monitor your romantic partner
 
Your Facebook is my Homepage: an analysis of facebook use and jealousy within romantic relationships
Rice, Muscanell, Guadagno, Murphy
 
"Creeping" or just information seeking?: gender and responses to jealousy triggers on facebook.
 
Effects of online self-disclosure on intimacy and satisfaction within romanticrelationships
 
  • Children!
Psychological effects of violent media on children
 
Social Networking's Good and Bad Impacts on Kids
Rosen, Hills. End up narcissistic and short attention spans, but also more empathetic and social easier.
 
blogging helps teens deal with social distress
 
Parenting perfectionism and new parent pages
 
Alcohol identity implicit associations test
 
Digital Harassment and Cyberstalking
Carll, Chung
 
Facebook Effects on Prosocial Behavior
Kristofferson
Already showed your approval, feel good, no reason to do more.
 
Online groups and political discourse: do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?
 
Is there a connection between civic and political participation?
Online users tend to trust messages spread through online campaigns more.
 
 
Monica B Takeaways: methods tend to be survey? not necessarily describing cause and effect, but correlations and relationships; studies described focus on how identity, personality, motives, relationships, etc. are enacted online and influence engagement with various platforms.
 
Willow B Topics
all the studies presented are correlational, so the best we can do with those is say the tech use can help us tap into variables we otherwise have trouble seeing.
...
983 days ago
Unfiled. Edited by Willow Brugh 983 days ago
  • Preparing for disasters 
Some things can be prepared for.  Disasters tend to ignore what you've prepared for.  We need to respond even when all planned structures fail.
 
Samuel K Examples
When Superstorm Sandy hit: FEMA and national groups showed up and build a massive big-block support center.  Asked people to leave damaged houses, cope with travel, to get financial aid, materials.  And what's available is based on assumptions, not matched to actual needs.
Alternative: p2p, d2d delivery.  Deployed with FEMA Field Innovation Team, mainly working w OccupySandy.
National volunteer orgs provide surge capacity for understood interactions, and are separate from Occupy.  Super high overhead.
[aside; update gimg to new phgimg]
 
How do nodes surface knowledge to themselves?
How do you let volunteers who show up know how your {kitchen, church} works?  
A: lots of the signposting is embedded physically: signs, posters, arrows. Editable, updated.  Including links to other nodes. Physical wiki of sorts.
 
Willow B Knowledge to various nodes in same location
Meetings in person. Hear what everyone is up to.
 
To a similar node in a different location
If I'm in a kitchen in Clinton, I might go to a space in Jacobi.  We only transfer the things that matter to us.  For example, someone noticed that a damp towel under a cutting board reduced it moving around.  not something you'd write down, but it comes across in person.  At Sandy, we asked vols to take 1 day off and 1 in the field for self-care, reminders of why they were doing what they were doing, and also for this knowledge transfer.
 
Across the network
Tools: we used Maestro which lets you get a feel for the room (voting via dialpad).
 
To other networks
 
Oklahoma: some experienced responders put out a call saying anyone who wants to can join here and we'll train you however we can.  Whatever people didn't use in OK, was shot down.  No need to continue just b/c it had happened elsewhere.
 
984 days ago
Unfiled. Edited by Willow Brugh , Samuel Klein 984 days ago
Willow B "We need a TOS the app signs with us." Be able to see how they're going to use the permissions, have repercussions for breaking those promises. "make meaningful promises."
"But promises like that would stifle innovation!"
 
Permissions to listen "a few seconds prior" for Google Now. The local chip is what is always listening, opens up the network connection when "Ok, Google" happens for larger search. But this language is missing.
 
Samuel K
  • Intermediaries
Willow B There are also Side-Chains and Bottom-Feeders. Today we're focused on Vectoralists. You have to pass through a vectoralist in order to do the thing you want to do. Payment apps. Snapcash, Square, Line. (how does this differ from something like M-Pesa). Less a friend through whom you get news, more an organization that interjects itself in.
 
Side Chaining
 
Bottom-Feeders
 
Vectoralists
 
 
1004 days ago
Unfiled. Edited by Tim Davies , Reynol Junco , Willow Brugh , yaoe 1004 days ago
Tim D What makes for good deliberation platforms?
 
Welcome! We are were addressing the questions:
  • What conditions should an online platform fulfil that claims to be a public space for deliberation or exchange between citizens, political actors and civil society? 
  • Which aspects should be considered by the administrators when creating or running such a platform, or by different actors when choosing which platform to use? 
 
You can participate in exploring the answers by typing direct into this document. We've also taken (Chatham House) notes from the in-the-room discussions here. 
 
The process:
  • Start a new discussion thread by adding a question or line in bold below. 
  • Add your responses add a bullet point. Respond to other people's bullets but indenting your comment. 
  • You can see who wrote each section by looking at the coloured text at the side. 
  • You can also suggest changes to the process in the same way. 
  • Anyone should be able to help out keeping things tidy. But they should take care not to edit the meaning of other people's points. 
 
Notes from each group are given below...
 
Willow B
  • Civil Society
Supply side is what usually drives chats for grassroots. "They all seem like they're the same" but they don't network well.
 
Tim D Grassroots civil society groups tend to be driven by people who are passionate about their issues: looking downwards, but not looking upwards. No resources to look in that direction. 
 
Willow B Unless there's a concrete benefit to their issue, unlikely to join. Look horizontally.
 
Run by the state: feeds into a formal process
Exec authority, because the political parties ain't that. Foudnations, etc. Abilities to make change in grassroots orga are at muni or state level. Tied into real authority, period of public comment, if we participated our voices would be entered into a public record. Effectiveness of message.
Tim D
  • Interesting links here to the call made in Micah Sifry's latest book for having online public spaces. 
  • But - are states able to host the sorts of spaces that are needed? Or are they too risk-averse in wanting to over-moderate etc. 
 
Willow B Independent of Authority
Tim D In this context it would be more challenging. Would need to see modelling of engagement on potential impact of voice. To get movement onto platform we should have to see that there was actual possibility of change. Affordances that might matter would include security, relevance to things we work on. We would have to be working in a political system that honours voice: in many political systems it can be dangerous to reach point of potential change, and platforms can be untrustworthy, with participation coming under attack and falling apart. The wider setting for the platform matters - the platforms can't overcome lack of wider setting.
 
Change.org, One, All Out conference call - even the threat of political mobilisation was enough to get what they want if they were going for political change. The platform as an actor, not just a space for other voices. Discussion notes that these platforms have already build persuasion, and profile.
 
Persistence of conversations is important affordance. Able to point back - and see record of voice being expressed. Making things traceable back to where they happened on a platform is important.
 
But - also making sure things can't be traced back to the original author may be important if that's something the author needs. E.g. petition gets big in country where that might be a problem. 
 
  • Policy makers and politicians 
Willow B Legitimacy of teh state matters in where I'm based. National level, opportunities for curated discussion for things I'm workign on (Reddit AMA) would provide a great way to exchange engagement for power. Want to find ways to partiipate.
Major Needs
Expert input, quick testimony on my current problem - bill, controversy I have to respond to. I never get that quickly. Distill a conversation from experts into a few bullet points would be amazing. My staff be observers, not participants.
Outlet for Sharing Position
Feedback, way to let constituants know about my take on a certain space.
Local Government
Might be using as a compliment, as involving citizens in a larger capacity. Urban planning processes, town meeting process, some way of having master facilitators on the platform able to drive conversations towards an end. Either greater sense of legitimacy, or a way to continue conversations such that decisions are in light of the broader public stance.
 
  • Big NGO
Tim D Thinking in terms of the big tier policy making orgs like kato, Brookings, policy makers.
Value in two ways: Convening and intervening. 
  • As a convening platform - on the issues they care about. Convening particular conversations on this platform, particularly if it has proven record. NGOs may care about things like branding, white label, naming and URLs. May care specifically about impact - including impact measurement. Traffic, comments, duration on page. Also may be able to see if they moved or shaped the conversation. 
  • If platform is already successful, and they are intervening rather than convening - can look at how conversations move after their intervention. 
  • Often these conversations are 'Chatham House rules' or closed door. Question of whether platforms might be able to provide this. 
  • Constituency might not care so much about privacy issues etc. 
 
Willow B
  • Citizens
What causes us to share a link on a given platform. Interesting to see a platform which convenes all those different discussions. 20 people talking about it over here, read about something but don't know what to think. Posting on facebook would imply we're vouching for the article when maybe we just want feedback.
 
What would motivate people to participate if not political or active? Have a history of commenting on one platform or another. Have people see the platform as having value.
 
Tim D
  • Service
Thinking about characteristics that a service might have. Rather than a platform be a place where you post new content and come to express their views - that it could act as an aggregator, Reddit type style. Users could be anon, pseudon, public identity - linking to existing things they have written. Real value would be in the comments, and with things people vote up and down. Subreddit-like. Service itself could post stories it thinks relevant - but this gets into question of whether the service is an actor. Want service to not be an actor and to minimise that role. Reddit type forum has  that ability. 
Rules of the road
Equal access and participation
 
"I'm not sure I've ever heard the phrase the comments are valuable, for anything modelled on Reddit" Curious about the moderation piece > if you took reddit you would have to do some serious moderation to get that to the point where the comments were valuable. Reddit has created environment where lots of people are uncomfortable to participate.
  • Point was not to replicate Reddit, but was to not try and start platform - but to aggregate content and views already expressed across the Internet. Al-la Reddit in idea of 'Topic', and comments as the discussion. 
 
A number of newspaper has discussion sections: can work pretty well. 
 
Being one-step away from the article you are commenting on might be useful. 
 
A lot of people are at platform saturation. Having to log-in to get another site is too much. But what about it being a plugin? When I'm looking at a site which is comment-curated... what about linking to the content.
Willow B
  • Caveat that it's self-selected
Tim D
  • Thinking: that's what happens on facebook... why would we create something else when Facebook is already here.
  • I think big issue is around facilitation practice: people able to bridge content between different platforms. Facilitation involves summarising, reflecting back, putting forward alternative viewpoints... and it's a time-consuming but important practice. Tools could support blended facilitation practice, rather than building new platforms for discussion to take place on. 
Willow B
  • At the core of this is: functionality, contents already exist in certain places. Why create a platform like this? This space should respsect legitimate interests of actors on all sides of the spectrum.
  • Politicians go on facebook and youtube all the time asking for feedback and commentary.
  • How do you get more established actors on board to this, especially before it's big?
 
Tim D Anything NGO funded or foundation backed likely to be measuring outcomes that are not only discourse-for-discourse sake. Is there any responsibility running a platform like this to let users know its not just discourse for discourse sake. 
 
Willow B
  • Platforms
Tim D Who are you? And how do you self-identify
We discussed people introducing themselves as part of discussions... you can add yourself here...
  •  - I identify as a 'facilitator', and a liberal pluralist
  •  
Willow B Equal Access and Welcoming to all participants. 
Regardless of political alignment, the platform should be accessible. We feel this has to do with being open to opinions (a non-partisan space), inclusive of identities, malleable, moderated, change-tracked, and contain known ground rules.
Tim D
  • Would it be useful to have some 'snap-chat' like spaces. I.e. not necessarily long-term tracked. Letting people express ideas they are unsure of, without it necessarily going on the record. 
Willow B
  • We talked a lot at Weaponized Social about "safe foyers" - not expecting the whole space to be safe, as that restricts movement, but rather side pockets where folk could be invited to parse through where they might have made a misstep.
Tim D
  • I like the idea of foyers. Having some 'off the record' chat spaces, or ability to go incognito (at least with other people who have chosen to be in these spaces) might be useful. Or perhaps like the tool that was used a while back by Berkman - names not being revealed right away - and giving people the option to remove their comment before de-anon if they no-longer feel they want to stand by it. 
Willow B
  • But always including a moderator, to prevent the badness?
Tim D
  • Agreed - though with as light-touch moderation as possible / community moderation wherever possible. 
 
Willow B Making it a non-partisan space
  • Language Framing: Non-Partisan language, explicitly welcoming (sets tone for others to also be welcoming, lets them know they ARE welcome)
  • Transparent commenting moderation: So it doesn't seem partisan
 
...

Contact Support



Please check out our How-to Guide and FAQ first to see if your question is already answered! :)

If you have a feature request, please add it to this pad. Thanks!


Log in