Peter’s Newsletter 15 – Ireland’s Gig Economies

September 3, 2020 in Weekly Newsletter

I send this update in a newsletter every Friday morning. Subscribe for free here.

In this week’s issue: Gig economy workers, Yelp data predicts covid hotspots, fake guardian headlines, what Europe can teach silicon valley, the UK’s grading algorithm, the human cost of conspiracy theories and most of Scots wikipedia is made up. 

📰 Ideas

How do we classify workers in the gig economy? When I lived in San Francisco one of my housemates used to do “Task Rabbit” jobs the odd evening or weekend for a few extra dollars. He’d usually get a job to assemble some furniture, or move a couch or lift something heavy (he’s a tall guy!). He wasn’t a full time employee, he didn’t have to commit to a certain number of hours. He’d just mark himself available on the app when he wanted some extra spending money. It was the perfect arrangement for him.

But for many others it wasn’t so simple. Taxi drivers who were now Uber or Lyft drivers didn’t always have that luxury, many did it as a full time job, not just a nixer. And many of the platforms demanded more in return for them. Postmates and Instacart made their shoppers commit to being available for multi-hour shifts, rather than having the freedom to accept jobs as and when they want them. This starts to look less and less like “gigs” and more and more like regular old jobs.

So how do we regulate jobs like these? How do you balance the protections and rights we want to guarantee all workers, without killing the opportunities for “gigs” that many find a useful supplement to their income, or a flexible way to work around other commitments?

California is place currently trying to find this balance…. but not very well. Legislation was due to come into force today that would force all Uber and Lyft drivers to be re-classified as employees, but a court has granted an emergency stay this week. In a case of both sides being wrong, the California legislation seems very poorly drafted and overly broad, but equally incredulous is Uber and Lyft’s claims that their drivers are completely independent contractors.

In London, even though taxi-drivers are generally self-employed, the Employment Tribunal found that Uber drivers are not independent contractors. Independent contractors, they reasoned, can negotiate their fee, are free to reject work or set many of their own terms, none of which are options available to Uber drivers. They are therefore more like employees and should get employees rights, like sick pay and minimum wage. Uber are appealing this in the UK Supreme Court at the minute.

Closer to home, our major taxi app Free Now does act more like a simple connector for Taxis, so doesn’t come up against these conflicts, but we do have many “gig economy” workers, especially in food delivery like Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats. All of these companies engage their riders as self-employed contractors, rather than employees.

Earlier this year the High Court issued a finding that Dominos Pizza delivery drivers are effectively employees, not contractors, even if their contract says otherwise. The High Court’s reasoning was similar to the London tribunal’s. One would imagine they’d apply the same finding to all other gig economy companies, if a case comes before them.

Which would probably mean that services like Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats won’t be able to operate in Ireland (they already loose a ton of money even without this). And maybe that’s where we’ll end up, that they can’t be viable businesses without exploiting vulnerable workers, in which case we’ll move on without them. But it’s probably worth exploring and writing more explicit regulations for these industries, to try find a middle ground that protects workers, especially those most economically vulnerable, while also giving them and others the benefits offered by more flexible gig work.

The worst case is that we end up where California is this week, with the worst of both worlds.

🔗 Interesting Links

The data team at Yelp have taken all of their usage data and mapped it against Covid-19 outbreaks in the US. Two interesting findings. The first is the specific activities that are linked to outbreaks – “As people began resuming common pre-pandemic activities [….] – specifically, frequenting restaurants, bars and nightlife, and gyms – a clear spike in COVID-19 cases within those locations quickly followed.” Second, even in states without mandated lockdown, people naturally curtailed visits to places where social distancing is harder to enforce. Many temporary closures are becoming permanent too. Link.

You’ve probably seen those fake guardian headlines on Twitter? Some are funny parody, poking fun at the various columnists at the paper, but many are used to stoke outrage at opinions that were never published (see screenshot below). Lots of these are created on a free website, which the Guardian is now suing for copyright infringement. It’s an interesting challenge, balancing parody in freedom of speech, vs. malicious disinformation. I would have thought it would have made more sense as a Trademark / misleading consumers approach, rather than copyright, but I’m very much not a lawyer. Link.

Marietje Schaake, formerly a Dutch MEP, has been joined Stanford University in a role which I saw described as “Europe’s ambassador to Silicon Valley”. Probably a stretch, but the New Yorker have a great profile on her and the lessons America can learn from Europe about regulating tech. “Silicon Valley is not usually seen as a policy hub, but, of course, it is one. I saw there was more Silicon Valley in Europe than Europe in Silicon Valley and I felt maybe this should changeLink.

China’s Baidu (Google equivalent) blanks out parts of its maps, so these intelligent reporters in Buzzfeed used those blanks to find a network of 315 locations that look like active internment camps in XInjiang, presumably for the Uighur muslims. Stellar investigative journalism. Link.

For the stats nerds – How Does Ofqual’s Grading Algorigthm Work? – particularly relevant as our own Department of Education will be doing something similar with Leaving Cert results here. Link

This is a sad read on the real human cost of online conspiracy theories. “A Florida taxi driver, who believed false claims that coronavirus was a hoax, has lost his wife to Covid-19” Link.

The Women Making Conspiracy Theories Beautiful. Link.

It turns out most of Scottish Wikipedia (about 20,000 articles) was written by an American teenager who doesn’t speak Scots, “but simply tries to write in a Scottish accent”. Link.

Peter’s Newsletter 14 – What is QAnon?

August 21, 2020 in Weekly Newsletter

In this week’s issue. A briefing note on QAnon. Plandemic 2 gets cancelled. Fatphobic Instagram? Fact-checking fails again. Earthquake alerts. How the New York Times grew millions of subscribers. Social Signalling in Social Networks and How Tik Tok’s algorithm works.

💡 Ideas

How seriously should we take QAnon? 

Every now and again a new conspiracy theory becomes popular. New world order, flat – earthers, fake moon landing (even fake moon!). Many are interesting and bizarre, but some can also be quite dangerous. The false linking of autism to vaccines, for example, is a very serious national health risk.

So it’s always hard to know how to categorise new conspiracies that emerge. Most are peculiar, but not worth spending much time getting to know, but the dangerous ones are worth studying, especially if you are interested in preventing their spread.

The “QAnon” movement definitely falls into the dangerous category, but it’s very US-centric, so I’m still unsure what hold it has in Ireland. Small but growing, it seems.

What is QAnon? Since 2018 a person or people calling themselves “Q” has been making a series of posts, some containing vaguely worded statements, which conspiracy theorists interpret as predictions. Like a fan looking for meaning in song lyrics, they usually find ways to back-fill “predictions” into real world events, deeming Q to have successfully predicted them.

The rhythm of these predictions (or drops) and the frenzy that follows makes seems to build incredibly strong community between the conspiracy theorists who follow Q. This has seen it grow incredibly fast, with an estimated 1.2m people in one or more QAnon related Facebook groups as of July 2020. It also does what many other conspiracies do – isolates followers from their friends and family in real life. Reddit’s QanonCasualties has some harrowing stories from people who’s loved ones have become obsessed with QAnon.

What do they believe? Well that’s the other interesting thing about QAnon – because it’s directed by a single person/group, it shifts focus every so often and kind of acts as a catch-all of major conspiracies. 5G is mind control. Bill Gates made Covid. You name it, they got it. I’d imagine for followers this keeps the movement compelling and interesting, but also adds up to quite a bleak view of the wider world that you inhabit.

They had two major inflection points recently which significantly drove growth. Most recently Covid and lockdown, but before that, Epstein. To be fair to them, they believed the world is run by a paedofile ring of politicians and billionaires… and they weren’t exactly proven wrong.

So how worried should we be? Globally, quite. The FBI has deemed them a domestic terror threat and they have been behind a huge amount of the anti-mask movement. A Q follower is now a Republican congressional candidate in Georgia and yesterday Trump praised Q followers.

But in Ireland, I think it’s worth just being alert for now. Much of the Q narrative is around Donald Trump and how he is the great saviour, which I just don’t think translates too well here. So we seem relatively safe for now, but it’s worth understanding and keeping an eye on. The very nature of the social internet seems to be leading inevitably towards more dangerous and virulent conspiracy movements emerging.

If you want to read further, The New York Times have a good primer. Aoife Gallagher of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue talked to the Beacon this week about QAnon in Ireland (summary: small but growing). Or if you want to deep-dive, check out Gallagher’s report on “The Genesis of a Conspiracy Theory.”

Or if you’d prefer to listen…. Reply All looked at one QAnon conspiracy in July. The New York Times also did a 9 part series called Rabbithole, which is fantastic.

🔗 Interesting Links

Plandemic was a 26 minute long video posted in May, which pushed several conspiracy theories about Covid and how it was intentionally released by some billionaires. Shared widely by QAnon followers it got several million views across YouTube, Facebook and elsewhere before the platforms stepped in to take it down. The sequel was released this week, but the platforms took more decisive action this time around, blocking it out right from the get go. Read more.

On the flip side of the content filtering debate, Instagram came under criticism from activists this week for removing photos of model Nyome Nicholas – Williams (@curvynyome). The photos seemed to trigger Instagram’s nudity filter, even though they’re very similar to many semi-nude (if that’s the right terminology) photos that haven’t been removed. Nyome and the photographer pointed to the fact that her photos, being of a larger, black woman, being removed while others (of skinny, non-black women) remaining on the site pointed to inherent bias in Instagram – either their AI or policies or both. It seems Instagram listened and have since updated their policies. Read more.

To further exemplify the tight-rope platforms are trying to walk between blocking too much and blocking not enough, Slate recently reported on Google blocking advertising from their articles about racism, incorrectly flagging them as racist. No technology will ever get this balance perfect, so the question we need to ask is which side we should err on? Pulling ads/support from anti-racist content, or allowing ads/support on racist content?

Add this to the growing body of evidence that fact-checking fake news doesn’t work very well. A team in UCD tested some fake news messages on people (e.g. that the COVID tracking app was made by Cambridge Analytica) and it always made people less confident about downloading, even if the story was accompanied by fake news warnings. Link.

Earthquake alerts. Google are planning to enable all android devices to work together to detect synchronous shaking in a specific area, use that to understand that an earthquake is happening, then send early warning alerts to people nearby, hopefully giving them a few seconds to get prepared. Link.

A good exit interview with the CEO of the New York Times. Interesting to see their strong focus on paid subscriber growth and building an agile digital team to deliver that. Link.

I’ll also include two excellent pieces of writing about tech platforms here which I came across this week.

Proof of X” looks at how Social Networks are designed to force people to do things for social signalling, then asks if we can design social networks that encourage people to do things that are good for them.

Eugene Wei’s “Tik Tok and the sorting hat” is a brilliant analysis of the algorithms behind TikTok’s incredible growth in the last 12 months.

What Should Ireland’s Data Centre Strategy Be?

August 14, 2020 in Essays

Last week TikTok announced it would be investing €420m in new Data Centres in Ireland, and creating up to 100 jobs in the process.

The IDA announced this as a big win for Ireland, but the announcement sparked a bit of pushback and public debate, with many questioning the wisdom of our industrial strategy that encourages Data Centres to locate here.

The main concern with Data Centres is their power usage. Eirgrid, which manages our national electricity grid, predicts that Data Centres alone will account for 29% of our total energy demand in 8 years time.

“The demand forecast in Ireland continues to be heavily influenced by the expected growth of large energy users, primarily Data Centres. These need a lot of power and can require the same amount of energy as a large town.”

We have signed up to aggressive carbon emission reduction targets, which we’re already at risk of missing, so an ever increasing number of power hungry Data Centres will surely worsen our performance, costing us both financially and ecologically.

Is it fair that we are giving our beef farmers grief one day, but celebrating new Data Centres the next?

The other main critique is that, given all of the power Data Centres demand, they give back very little in terms of jobs. The initial build creates a flurry of construction work, but after that the maintenance is minimal.

The Government’s policy on the benefit of Data Centres also feels weak. The Government ‘Statement on The Role of Data Centres in Ireland’s Enterprise Strategy’ says:

“Data centre presence in Ireland raises its visibility internationally as a technology-rich, innovative economy. In turn, this places Ireland on the map as a location of choice for a range of sectors and activities that are increasingly reliant on digital capabilities including manufacturing, financial services, animation, retail and global business services.”

But does that really hold up? Just because your Data Centre is in Athlone, does that make you more likely to locate your UX design team in Grand Canal Dock? I’m always skeptical of any strategy that has “raising awareness” as it’s main KPI.

TikTok’s dual announcement of HQ and Data Centre jobs this week adds weight to their claim, but overall I’m still skeptical.

Taking this all into account, however, I still think a strong case can be made for Data Centres in our strategic industrial policy.

They don’t create many jobs, sure, but that shouldn’t be entirely negative. They create a large amount of economic value, but don’t take much human intervention. So we need to ensure that we capture that value for our wider society. This means ensuring the Corporate Tax rate is enforced and paid in full.

An important factor of their energy consumption is that it is all Electricity, and every year more and more of our Electricity is generated by renewables. We’re approaching 40% in 2020, the vast majority of which is Wind.

You can’t plug a cow into a windmill, but you can a data centre.

It’s also worth asking “if not here, then where?” Due to our cool climate, Ireland could be one of the most carbon efficient places to host data centres. We’re not going to stop watching Netflix and making Zoom calls, so are we just pushing the servers behind those activities to a more carbon intensive environment?

In a simplistic view, one can imagine each new Data Centre built here being connected to a state owned Wind Farm, financed by zero interest bonds, paying large amounts of recurring revenue for its energy and paying its corporate taxes each year.

This would take a courageous industrial policy, attracting Data Centres because we know Ireland is a great place for them, and charging and regulating them accordingly.

The current Government strategy doesn’t do this. It’s far too optimistic on the positive externalities, talking about Data Centres as if they’re akin to University R&D Labs, rather than warehouses full of servers, and it’s too light on the measures we need to counter the negative externalities and push for net-zero carbon emissions. The only concrete proposals it contains are about removing local communities from the planning process, to streamline it.

I do think a stronger, more ambitious policy is possible, which continues to pitch Ireland as the home of Data Centres in Europe, but mandates a goal net-zero carbon emissions, ties in a strategy of state owned renewable generation and ensures that local communities have a say in how they benefit from these businesses.

In this model wind and cold weather can become Ireland’s new natural resource. It’s our new gold and Data Centres are how we mine them.

Peter’s Newsletter 13 – Do We Like Data Centres?

August 14, 2020 in Weekly Newsletter

In this week’s issue: What should Ireland’s Data Centre strategy be? Is the NDRC value for money? Apple blocks Fortnight. Facebook removes Trump’s video. How we regulate the web. TikTok opens it’s algorithm for regulators. And a podcast recommendation.

Articles

How should we feel about Data Centres? This week I wrote a piece about Ireland’s current industrial policy of attracting Data Centres to locate here and ask if they’re really worth the environmental cost? Read more.

Interesting Links

NDRC up for tender. The NDRC was Ireland’s first tech accelerator. It is privately run but Government funded, with a mission to invest in and support new Irish tech companies. Over the last 10 years the company who runs it have received €43m from the state and the results have been fairly middling. They paid their 18 staff €111k on average, and the CEO over €250k, which is wild. The contract is up for tender, which should be announced next month. Link.

Fortnight vs. Apple. Apple’s app store is fairly tightly regulated. They refuse apps for a whole host of reasons, to keep quality high or to remove apps that might be unsafe for users. They also have strict commercial terms, taking a 30% cut on all in-app payments (and companies often have no other options but to pay). This has lead to a few high-profile clashes in recent weeks, with app makers accusing Apple of profiteering. The latest of which is Epic games, makers of Fortnight. Yesterday they gave people the option of paying them directly in-app, using a credit card, bypassing Apple’s in-app payments and their 30% tax, so Apple swiftly removed the wildly popular game from the App Store. If you’re a parent of young kids, you’ve probably already heard about this. Link.

Facebook finally removes a Trump post. The post was removed because it contained false information about COVID (that kids are ‘almost immune’), so it was a pretty clear violation of Facebook policies, but it’s the first time they have removed any of his posts. Link.

Regulate the Web. An excellent overview of the history of how we have built and regulated the internet, and where we might go from here. Link.

Simon McGarr has a piece on Ireland’s Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill and it’s ambitions to create an Online Safety Commissioner tasked with regulating… everything? Link.

TikTok have launched a new Transparency Centre, saying they “believe all companies should disclose their algorithms, moderation policies, and data flows to regulators. We will not wait for regulation to come, but instead TikTok has taken the first step by launching a Transparency and Accountability Center for moderation and data practices. Experts can observe our moderation policies in real-time, as well as examine the actual code that drives our algorithms.” Link.

Podcast recommendation – Wrongfully accused by an algorithm, from The Daily. Link.

Peter’s Newsletter 12 – The Geopolitics of TikTok’s Irish Announcement

August 6, 2020 in Weekly Newsletter

In this week’s newsletter issue – The wider context to TikTok’s big Irish jobs announcement, new stats from Scotland show the bias we’ll see from the Leaving Cert grading algorithm, Australia’s plan to tax big tech to support news media.

TikTok announced that they will be hiring “hundreds” of new jobs in Ireland, investing €420m in the next two years to build their main EU data centre here. Jobs announcements are always welcome (even if they don’t fully deliver on the promise) but it’s worth looking at some of the wider politics at play behind this particular announcement.

TikTok is a social media app owned by the Chinese company Bytedance. From the earliest days, the Bytedance founder has tried his best to position the app as a global tech platform, rather than a Chinese company. Most of their user data is stored on servers are outside China. They hired an American from Disney as their CEO. They’re building up big teams outside the US. They even made TikTok unavailable in China, so videos aren’t subject to the Communist Party’s censorship rules.

All of this to try create the first truly global tech company, based in China. But at the end of the day, geopolitics is catching up. It’s still a Chinese owned company operating under the Chinese legal system, which means it is ultimately answerable to the whims of the CCP. I haven’t seen any nefarious interference in TikTok from China, but it seems like the threat alone is enough to make the US administration nervous about the app’s gaining popularity.

That’s the context within which the Irish data centre was announced this week. “This investment in Ireland” TikTok’s Chief Information Security Officer said, “will create hundreds of new jobs and play a key role in further strengthening the safeguarding and protection of TikTok user data.”

You can see the angle they’re going for here. Even the fact that the “Chief Information Security Officer” is the one they put in the press release is revealing of the strategy.

None of it has helped, it seems, as Trump’s administration is now threatening to ban the app in the US unless it sells to an American company, with Microsoft as the only potential suitor. The Trump administration continues to escalate this even further, announcing a new policy last night that includes a plan to “remove untrusted applications from U.S. mobile app stores.

TikTok’s fate should be interesting to all of us, not just because it’s used by hundreds of thousands of young Irish people, but because it is the first casualty of an escalating digital trade war between the US and China. The position the EU will take in all this, and Ireland as the home of big tech in Europe, is still unclear and certainly one worth watching as it develops.

Leaving Cert Algorithms. Often a good way to think about bias in algorithms is not that they are biased themselves, but that they reveal biases in the underlying system that they’re based on. When you feed in historical data about the way decisions were made in the past, develop an algorithm using that data, but then find the algorithm is making biased predictions, that’s a revelation about bias present in the historical decisions, moreso than the algorithm.

All this to say that we will probably find revealing biases in the calculated grades when the Leaving Cert results get released next month. The grading will done in two phases. First, a student’s grade will be guesstimated by teachers, with oversight by the principal to normalise grades within a School. That seems fine. But then the Department of Education will apply a “National standardisation” of grades, which is basically a predictive algorithm. It looks at the grades the average student in that school got in the past and uses that to predict what an average student would have got in 2020, if the Leaving Cert had gone ahead as normal. If the average grade in a School is higher than predicted, their grades will be adjusted down accordingly.

How might this look in practice? Scotland released their numbers this week. Teachers in the most deprived Schools graded their average student at 85%, but the average mark was brought down to 69%, because kids in deprived schools usually never did that well. Compare that to the least deprived schools, which were graded at 90%, but weighted down to just 84%.

Poor kids can’t get high grades in 2020 because poor kids don’t normally get high grades.

So when the calculated grades get released here and inevitably show massive unfairness similar to Scotland, remember that the unfairness is not in the new grading process, but in the deeply unfair system underneath. The inequality will be no different this year to any other, it will just be quantified and transparent in a way it wasn’t before.

The Business Model of Journalism. In Australia this week, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission released a draft plan to force payments from digital platforms (Facebook, Google etc.) to pay money to Australian media organisations. It’s an interesting new approach. It claims the problem is an imbalance of power in the bargaining ability of news organisations against tech platforms.

It says that Australian news companies can’t charge Facebook and Google for “deriving a benefit from the ability to make Australian news content available to their users” and blames that on an imbalance in bargaining power.

It’s an odd approach. News articles appearing in Google search results and being shared on Facebook, driving lots of clicks to their websites, seems like something that benefits those media organisations? But the Australian government thinks Google and Facebook should pay for the privilege?

The advertising business model that supported journalism is collapsing and journalism is important to society as a whole, so the case to use a tax to prop up new media, or just directly fund journalism, has merits. Why not just explore that? This feels like a huge number of extra steps because you don’t want to call a tax, a tax.

 

I send this update in a newsletter every Friday morning. Subscribe for free here.

Peter’s Newsletter 11 – How do we decide which ads to ban?

July 30, 2020 in Essays, Weekly Newsletter

There wasn’t much important news in the world of tech this week, so this week’s newsletter is a deeper piece of analysis on the ASAI’s decision to remove the Tampax commercial, the role of self-regulation and the Facebook Supreme Court which will set up later this year and make lots of decisions like these.

The “Tampons & Tea” Ad

This week the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland upheld complaints about a tampon commercial which Tampax have been running on Irish TV.

The decision to recommend the ad be removed from air has caused quite a bit of backlash, not least because many saw the ad as genuinely educational. You don’t read this newsletter to hear a tech nerd express opinions on tampon commercials, so I won’t, but I do think it’s interesting to consider how the ASAI made their decision and to ask the more important question… who even are the ASAI?

A total of 84 complaints were made about the advertisement, under 4 broad headings. Under three of the headings, the ASAI didn’t find the complaints adequate. These were “Sexual Innuendo”, “Suitability for Children” and being “Demeaning to Women”.

The only complaints that were upheld were under the heading of “General Offence” and even here the reasoning is peculiar. From my reading of their findings, it seems that, while the ASAU didn’t find it to be offensive, enough people complained that they considered the ad to be breaking the code that “A marketing communication should not bring advertising into disrepute.”

To paraphrase, ‘We didn’t find it offensive, but enough people did, and the rules say not to be offensive’.

In defence of the position, ASAI Chief Executive Orla Twomey said in the last four-and-a-half years there have been only seven adverts that have had 60 or more complaints.

So I guess we know the magic number now. If you want any ad you dislike taken off the air, just get 60 people to fill in an online form.

Who are the ASAI?

Despite what you might first guess, the ASAI is not a government body or publicly funded. It is an industry group which has a self-regulatory code of conduct for all advertisers.

The optimistic view of this setup is that all industry players have a vested interest in keeping the standards in advertising high. If one advertiser tries something crass and eye-grabbing which opportunistically works for them in the short term, but degrades the efficacy of advertising in the long term, this is bad for everybody.

Also, not being defined in legislation gives self-regulatory bodies a bit of nimbleness to adapt as methods and trends change.

The more pessimistic view is that they do “just enough” to keep the worst behaviour at bay, but give government no impetus to setup a public regulator or enforce stricter rules. The main motive of a body like the ASAI is to keep advertising a profitable enterprise over the long term by setting code of conduct for advertisers. Sometimes this profit motive overlaps with the wider goals of society, but sometimes it does not.

This week’s decision is a good example of when those interests can come into conflict. If you’re an industry body charged with keeping a medium profitable, why wouldn’t you ban the one ad a year that generates too much controversy? Assessing it complexly is difficult and erring on the side of conservatism makes sense.

Where as a statutory (non-industry) regulator may have to weigh up a decision more complexly, considering the educational benefit, the wider context of gendered “offence” and the importance of free expression.

This decision is also another great example of how difficult it will be to regulate “political” and “commercial” advertisements as if they are always distinct and separate. Is Always’ “Run Like A Girl” ad commerical or political? Nike’s Colin Kapernick ads? What about Monsanto running ads about the benefits of fertiliser?

This isn’t the ASAI’s first difficulty with this distinction either. In 2018, they refused to hear any complaints about any advertisements in the abortion referendum, which left the digital ads in an un-regulated limbo. In 2016, they found the ads for Eircode to be misleading, it said they were outside its remit because they’re “public broadcasts.” (Which is probably fair – you can’t have an industry body regulating the government?)

Facebook’s Supreme Court

While we’re on the topic of self-regulation, the new Facebook “supreme court” has been established this summer and will soon start hearing cases.

The Facebook Oversight Board, as it’s officially called, will play an interesting role for the company and is an experiment worth watching for anyone interested in the ongoing debate around how we moderate content online. It is made up of some pretty impressive people, mostly former judges and human rights lawyers, and the intention is that it sits separate to Facebook (although funded by it).

Characterizing the FOB is tricky, as Evelyn Douek notes – “It is court-like in that it will hear appeals from and act as a check on Facebook’s policy-formation and enforcement processes and provide public reasons for its decisions. But it will also give policy recommendations, and neither its members nor those who appear before it will be lawyers applying the law. It is a private institution fully of Facebook’s own creation, but it has reasonably robust mechanisms to ensure independence from Facebook, which has put $130 million into a trust intended to fund the FOB for at least two three-year terms. It is a global body, but it would be naïve to think that it will be able to settle global speech norms when different jurisdictions have clashed about these for many decades.”

Facebook currently employees about 35,000 content moderators globally, who make decisions every minute of every day to remove content from the platform based on an ever growing set of company policies. If the removal of an individual piece of content, or a certain type of content, proves very controversial, Facebook can escalate this to the FOB for deliberation.

People who are hoping this might act like the US Supreme Court, handing down binding rulings and setting precedent for Facebook, will be disappointed. This Oversight Board won’t act in that way, and it would probably be naïve to trust that such a system could always work – Facebook can always just choose to ignore a body that it established, if it wishes.

But Evelyn Douek argues, quite compellingly, that this isn’t what optimists should hope for from a body like this. Instead, the benefit should come from the act of public deliberation itself, rather than just the final ruling. Forcing Facebook to explain why they removed content, and defend the logic publicly, should greatly enhance the public debate around these issues and also cause Facebook to more carefully consider each internal policy they implement, knowing that they may one day have to defend it publicly.

The hope is that the dialogue between the FOB and Facebook, through being forced to make arguments in cases and publicly respond to FOB recommendations, will finally ventilate the reasons behind why Facebook makes the decisions that it does by forcing Facebook to justify them. This process itself will hopefully improve decision-making, but at the very least it will provide a level of transparency and accountability that is currently sorely lacking. To those from the United States, the paradigm “strong-form” judicial review jurisdiction, this might seem feeble. But many other jurisdictions have a version of this dialogic “weak-form” review, and it often turns out to be much stronger in practice than it appears in theory.

As we’ve seen this week here in Ireland, self-regulation has its own problems. As Douek notes, “it is unsatisfactory for private, profit-driven platforms to be making these decisions unilaterally and without any accountability.

“On the other hand, heavy-handed government involvement in speech regulation is always suspect, and the cure to our current woes should not be worse than the disease. The FOB is therefore an effort to find a third, least-worst option.”

Similar to the industry that the ASAI represents, much of Facebook’s business model would just be simpler if it was an uncontroversial space to sell people’s attention to advertisers, so why not delegate some of these decisions away?

These are issues that will only become more and more prevalent in the coming decade, as the public sphere shifts from broadcast and print to digital, so every new experiment is worth watching closely. I’ll be watching with skepticism and a dash of hope.

Peter’s Newsletter 10 – The TikTok Trade War

July 23, 2020 in Weekly Newsletter

I send this update in a newsletter every Friday morning. Subscribe for free here.

In this week’s issue: 1) The HSE Covid Tracker accused of tracking private info, 2) Why countries are banning Chinese tech, like Huawei and TikTok, 3) A YouTube algorithm art project, 4) Crowdsourcing maps of trees in Dublin, 5) Which counties pay the most income tax? 6) A new Irish game about growing up and coming out in Ireland, 7) Ireland shares it’s Covid App with the world and 8) Twitter mutes Q-Anon.

1) Is The Covid App Violating Privacy? (No, but several news stories reported that it does)

If you have the Google version of Android on your phone (as 99% of Android users in Ireland do) and want to install apps on the phone, you’ve probably created a Google Play account. If you did (and everyone does), then your phone pings Google HQ many times throughout the day with info about where your phone is and what its doing.

Google also developed the Exposure Notification Framework, which Covid Tracking apps in many countries, including Ireland, are built upon. If you’re using the Covid Tracking app on Android, you’re also a Google Play user and Google has your data.

A research paper published this week from Trinity points this out – that the Covid Tracker App works like all other apps. The paper asks, given that the aim is universal adoption, if Google should also provide a non-Google solution. They say this one type of app should have the option of working unlike all other apps, and be usable while avoiding Google’s data mining infrastructure.

That’s fair question to ask and an interesting angle for privacy campaigners to use to pushback on Goolge’s data hungry policies. But unfortunately it’s being reported on in some cases as “The Covid App shares all your data with Google”, which is a pretty unfair characterisation and risks undermining public confidence in the app.

2) TikTok and the Chinese Trade War. Tech is the arena where the growing tensions between China and the rest of the world are playing out. The US first, and now the UK, are starting to mandate the removal of Huawei technology from their mobile networks. India banned TikTok a few weeks ago, and there’s mumblings from the US about doing the same.

The core issue is the question most democracies will have to grapple with when thinking about how they engage with these new, large Chinese tech firms. How dependent do you want to become on any company that, at any time, could be forced to carry out the foreign policy aims of the Chinese Communist Party? I certainly don’t know the answers, but here’s a few thoughts:

  • For the last 20 years, the internet and global tech landscape has been shaped by the cultural norms and legal system of one country – the US (and in particular, Silicon Valley). This won’t be the case for the next 20 years, the US will be joined by many more, in particular the EU and China.
  • A common concern is phrased as – “What if” the CCP demand that TikTok’s algorithm promote videos in favour of the CCP foreign policies (burying videos about Uighur genocide, or Hong-Kong democracy, or disrupting an EU election) on a platform that the majority of young Irish people watch every day?
  • This feels new to Americans, but the rest of us are used to using tech built in foreign countries. The rest of us have been very worried about the impact of selling political reach to the highest bidder on US tech platforms, for example.
  • If the EU is comfortable saying our data shouldn’t be transferred to the US because of their surveillance laws, is blocking Huawei or TikTok because of CCP policy much different?

I think The Economist had the best take on this with their recent cover “Trade without trust”. An escalating tit-for-tat hurts everyone. We need to find a way for the EU and US to do trade with an authoritarian country that they can’t trust but can’t ignore. Link

3) Show me your YouTube. This cool art project lets you walk a mile in someone else’s digital shoes, by experiencing their YouTube recommendations. See what the YouTube homepage looks like for a “liberal, conservative, climate denier” and others. Link.

4) Mapping Trees. Dublin City Council and the National Tree Council have launched a project to crowdsource the mapping of every tree in the city. Read more http://www.dublincity.ie/dublin-tree-map

5) If Found…. Is a new, award winning game (on iOS and PC) about coming of age in Ireland in the 90s. As game dev becomes more accessible, it’s great to see more small teams in Ireland experiment with it as a story telling and art form. Link to the game. Dublin Inquirer writeup.

6) Income Tax & Jobs Dashboard. The PBO have produced another cool dashboard, this time an interactive map of disposable income, taxes and employment levels per county. Link.

7) Covid Green. Ireland have donated the source code of our new Covid Tracker app to an open source foundation, so that it can be used by other countries who need it. Great to see. Read more.

8) Q-Anon No More. Twitter has announced they are suppressing Q-Anon related content. This is a big move and really good to see. If you’re not aware of Q-Anon, it’s a new but fairly destructive conspiracy theory that’s doing the rounds. In the same space as 9/11 denial and New World Order. These conspiracy theories have incredibly destructive mental wellbeing and social isolation impacts on those who adopt them, so moves like this are great to see Link.

If you’d like to receive an email like this every week, you can subscribe for free here.

Peter’s Newsletter 09 – No €13bn Apple Tax

July 17, 2020 in Weekly Newsletter
I send this newsletter every Friday morning. Subscribe for free here.
In this week’s issue: Our Covid Tracker app is #1, The Curiosity Festival goes online, why we won’t be getting €13bn Apple Tax, Twitter got hacked, Anti-Vaxx and Covid, Privacy Shield, R/Relationships.
Ireland’s Covid Tracker App has been downloaded by about 1.3 million people. That means 26% of us have now downloaded the app, which is the highest of any country in the world. Go us! Second is Australia with 21%, according to this report.
 
The Curiosity Festival, Dublin’s International festival of science, arts, design & technology is online only this year. Lots of interesting items for people of all ages. Link.
 
Apple Tax. The EU General Court announced its ruling. This is a tax law story, not a tech one, so not in my area of expertise, but my my rough understanding is as follows: 
 
Apple has two companies in Ireland, based in Cork. The Irish revenue commissioner viewed them as not tax resident here (but also not resident in the US) and only taxed them on the small amounts of profit that they made in Ireland. The European Commission believed that all of their European profits came through Ireland, so they should all be taxed here. A sum total of €13bn of Tax that should have been charged but wasn’t. The Commission says this means Ireland’s Revenue gave special treatment to Apple which it wouldn’t normally give to other companies (“state aid”). 
 
The court ruling said that the Commission didn’t produce enough evidence that this was a sweetheart deal only applied to Apple. They didn’t show that the Cork offices controlled the Intellectual Property which was used to make massive profits, therefore didn’t prove that it should have been taxed here.
 
The Irish Revenue Commissioner doesn’t come out of the findings looking great – their process seems sloppy at best and secretive at worst – but the ruling again said that the Commission didn’t do enough to prove that errors made by Revenue were intentionally done to give Apple a unique advantage.
 
So the exceptionally small amount of tax paid by Apple on massive profits was not because of an illegal sweetheart deal, just as a result of the implementation of our general corporate tax policies. Hooray? Read more.
 
Twitter hacked. Twitter suffered a very large security breach on Wednesday. The details are still fuzzy, but it seems like hackers might have got access to a tool used by Twitter staff for accessing any account (or a staff member was involved). They used it to Tweet out a link to a money making scam from many high-profile accounts, including Joe Biden, Elon Musk and Barack Obama. It’s the kind of hack people have long worried about if, for example, hackers send out a tweet from Trump declaring nuclear war, or from the Indian PM announcing the invasion of Pakistan. In many ways they got off lightly with just a simple money scam. Read more.
Anti-Vaccination groups are gearing up for a disinformation war on any potential Covid vaccine. This report suggest that the top 3 groups in the US have 950,000 followers, and anti-vaxx groups in general have over 58 million followers on Facebook. We’ve seen how damaging it is to have people rejecting mask wearing, the challenge will be immense if they reject a vaccine too. Read more.
Privacy Shield is dead. One of the rules in GDPR is that companies cannot transfer the data of EU citizens to countries that don’t have adequate protections in place for that data. If the US govt can ask Twitter or Gmail to hand over an EU citizens data, is the US then considered an un-safe country for our data? After GDPR came into effect, a quick agreement was put in place between the EU and US to cover this, known as “Privacy Shield.” This was challenged in European courts and this week the European Court of Justice found that the US isn’t a good enough place to store EU data. This was a court case between Facebook Ireland, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner and an Austrian citizen. As Digital Rights Ireland tweeted, this “will have profound impacts globally. Most immediately for Ireland, it will have an impact on Brexit negotiations and the transfer of data to the post-Brexit UK. Link.
 
Reddit Relationship Stories are often bizarre and funny, and (not too surprisingly) often fake. This interview with the fake story writers reminds me of when I’d listen to the Adrian Kennedy phone show as a kid and my dad would tell me the crazy stories were just actors honing their skills. I feel now as I did then, that made up stories are just as much fun as the real ones. Read more.

Peter’s Newsletter 08 – 1 million Covid App Downloads

July 9, 2020 in Weekly Newsletter

I send this newsletter every Friday morning. Subscribe for free here. In this week’s issue:

The Covid Tacker launched, National Broadband gets a big speed upgrade, Airbnb on rent prices, Joe.ie sold, Apple’s €13bn, China’s Covid Tech, and a podcast recommendation.

Covid Tracker. As I’m sure you saw, the HSE launched their covid tracker app on Tuesday. As of this email, it has been downloaded by 1 million people, which is very impressive. Some other countries hit an early plateau in growth, like Germany at 15% of the population, now at 20% after 3 weeks, but we hit 20% within 3 days. Here’s hoping it keeps going at pace towards 50% and beyond.

When an app has a target audience of “everyone”, you’ll always hit snags that you didn’t see coming, and a few have appeared this week.  The Exposure Notification framework that the app uses doesn’t work on most Phones 5 years or older. This is a small percentage of the overall population, but a higher percent of the at-risk groups, like older people. There’s also the fact that it’s only available in the Irish App Store, which precludes foreign visitors from getting it if they come here. The next step is probably to work on interoperability between national apps, which the EU is already leading on.

Small bugs aside, the rollout has been very smooth and well managed. With all of the processing occurring on-device and nothing much happening in the cloud, it also means there’s no servers to crash on day 1, which is handy!

A few things worth keeping an eye on in the coming weeks:

  1. The uninstall rate – if users are deleting it from their phones in significant numbers, as has happened in other countries, it’s a worrying sign.
  2. The percentage of people with a positive diagnosis, who then log that in the app. Hopefully the HSE start reporting on this figure. Hopefully it rises over time.
  3.  The discourse around what people do when they get an exposure alert. Will their boss give them the 14 days off work to quarantine? Can they report for testing even without symptoms?
  4. International compatibility. It looks like Northern Ireland will be copying our code, so that both apps will be compatible which is great news.

You can download the app here, or read my detailed overview of the app here.

National Broadband. The Independent are reporting that the National Broadband minimum speed available to all households will be increased from 150mb to 500mb. In the original plan, 500mb wasn’t going to happen until 2026. They explain that this is because Eir wholesale have cut their prices, and National Broadband Ireland have to match it. Read more.

Airbnb. Ronan Lyons has some interesting analysis on what lockdown revealed about Airbnb’s impact on Dublin’s rental market. In summary, he says the impact is noticeable, but not a big driver of our under-supply. An extra 3,000 rental properties became available during lockdown (compared with a 75% decline in houses for sale). But he estimates we are short about 75,000 rental homes in general, because we just don’t build nearly enough apartments. Read more.

Joe.ie. After a few months of financial difficulty, Joe Media (Ireland & UK) has been acquired by investment bank Greencastle. Read more

Apple’s €13bn. The EU courts will announce their ruling on this next week. Should be interesting! Read more.

China’s Covid Tech. Merics have compiled a good overview of the tech solutions China have employed in the fight against Covid. The exact inverse of the Irish approach, prioritising security over privacy. Read more.

🎧 Podcast Recommendation.

Modern Problem is a 2 part series on Direct Provision in Ireland, by journalist Jane McNamara. It’s not tech related, just a really well produced piece of audio journalism that explains a complex situation in under 60 minutes. Apple PodcastsSpotify.

Peter’s Newsletter 07 – 3rd July

July 3, 2020 in Weekly Newsletter

I send this newsletter every Friday morning. Subscribe for free here. In this week’s issue:

In this issue:
Ireland: HSE’s contact tracing app. Simon Harris’ new department. Electoral reform. Cookie Notices.
Global: Facebook act on Trump. UK’s covid app. Hate speech management. The UK online.
And a podcast recommendation.

🇮🇪  Ireland

The HSE’s Contact Tracing App was announced last week. I have a full blog post on my site with an analysis of the choices they made, but the quick summary is this – they have designed an app that maximises privacy. This may increase the level of adoption, but gives the HSE far less data to action and relies on a bluetooth technology that isn’t fully proven yet. Will this trade-off encourage more people to download and use the app, ultimately leading to a greater level of effectiveness? Only time will tell, as all countries are figuring this out as they go along. Read more.

Simon Harris has left his post as Minister for Health and will now become Minister of the new Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. That’s quite an interesting title! I haven’t seen much detail yet, but the new minister describes it as a department “to help drive economic and social cohesion.” He explained that he sees it as having two broad goals:

  1. “Social cohesion” – ensuring more access to, and diversity within, higher education, science and research. This seems like a great focus, not just because it works towards a more equal society, but because a more diverse sector will surely produce better outcomes for the country. Technical apprenticeships could play a role here.
  2. Commercialising science. I was disappointed to see this as the way this was framed. I think this ministry could be a great opportunity to push in the opposite direction, to dive for more basic science research, to ask “what would it take to make Ireland a world-class leader in science?” The commercialisation usually follows.

It’s early days yet, so I’ll reserve judgement, but it’s certainly one to watch. Here’s a quick video the minister did about it. Follow the new dept on Twitter here.

Electoral reform. While we’re on minister watch, Malcolm Noonan of the Green Party is the new junior minister with responsibility for Electoral Reform (and Heritage). The Programme for Government promises to form an Electoral Commission by the end of next year, with the powers “to regulate online political advertising in the public interest and introduce a consistent regime relating to political advertising across all media.” Follow him on Twitter here.

Cookie Notices. The Irish Data Protection commissioner conducted a “sweep” of 40 large Irish websites to see what level of compliance each had with the cookie laws. Of the 38 who responded, only 2 got a “Green” from the DPC, the rest got an “amber” or “red”. To find only 5% of Irish companies complying with the law isn’t a good thing, but it’s hard to assess if that’s because companies are acting in bad faith, or because the law is too stringent or hard to understand, or somewhere in between.

In some senses, this transition is only difficult because so much of the infrastructure of the internet developed with an unregulated ethos for two decades, and now the ePrivacy Directive has come in with a very different philosophy. It leads to a lot of companies asking “surely you don’t mean we have to ask permission for everything?!” because not asking was the norm for so long.

On the other hand, from the consumer perspective, being asked permission for every cookie every time on every website is very cumbersome. It also forces businesses to ask permission for basic things – like counting the number of visitors to their site. Some companies are now unable to see 80% of the activity on their site once they started asking before using the basic Google Analytics cookie, for example.

There’s probably three ways we’ll move to resolve this:

  1. The business stops using the services that depend on the cookies. This means flying blind a lot more often with your advertising. When you don’t know how many sales that €10k campaign drove, it removes confidence from future decisions, improving your offering and investing further, which I think would be a net-negative. It also means killing a swath of 3rd party ad services, which is probably a net-positive.
  1. The legislation can change, categorising basic analytics services and advanced tracking behaviour as separate, and requiring different levels of permission for each. The new ePrivacy Directive from the EU is doing this.
  1. Technology solutions to make life easier for users. E.G. Telling your phone or browser that you’re ok with simple analytics on any website, but you want to be prompted every time for advanced stuff (or reject it by default). Chrome and Safari are already working on solutions in this space.

Read more: The DPC’s sweep report. Their podcast discussing the findings.

🌍  Global

Facebook content moderation. Announcing a change in their policy, Facebook will now be acting a little bit more like Twitter by labelling when a politician breaks their rules, but not removing it. From Zuckerberg’s post:

“A handful of times a year, we leave up content that would otherwise violate our policies if the public interest value outweighs the risk of harm. Often, seeing speech from politicians is in the public interest, and in the same way that news outlets will report what a politician says, we think people should generally be able to see it for themselves on our platforms.

We will soon start labeling some of the content we leave up because it is deemed newsworthy, so people can know when this is the case.” Link.

The story of the UK’s homegrown covid tracing app. Link.

Hate Speech. The European Commission published a study of how fast platforms responded to notifications of hate speech. 90% of the notifications were reviewed within 24 hours and 71% of the content is removed. Facebook was the fastest and Twitter was the slowest, with YouTube somewhere in between. Link.

Ofcom in the UK released their annual “Online Nation” report. Here’s some interesting stats on how the UK uses the internet, many of which I presume are comparable here:

  • 87% of adults are online. This is flat over 5 years, so we’ve probably peaked on “getting online” activity, now we need to consider the social and economic ramifications of the 10% who will never get online, while the rest of us live digital lives.
  • Children switch from accessing the internet “mostly tablet” to “mostly smartphone” at around age 12
  • A majority of children aged 12-15 have a social media account
  • People are getting significantly more aware with how their data is being used online, and more confident in their ability to manage it
  • Around half the respondents understood that advertising is personalised online, that Youtube is funded by advertising and that the top search results were paid-for. About half did not.
  • Eighty-one per cent of 12-15 year olds said they had had a potentially harmful experience online in the past year. The big drivers here seem to be unwanted contact on Facebook & Instagram, and offensive language on Facebook and YouTube.

Report Link.

Podcast Recommendation
Running From Cops is a 6 part series about the longest running reality TV show in the US – Cops. When every police officer under the age of 40 has grown up with Cops as one of the main portrayals of policing in their culture, what impact does that have on they way they act in the job? Listen here.