the online filter bubble

Shaun Inman just posted a link to a TED Talk by Eli Pariser on the “filter bubble”. This is exactly why I haven’t trusted third-party online services (in addition to the data mining and privacy implications). You can’t trust that what you’re provided, even in response to a “generic” search query, is the whole truth. It’s filtered. Massaged. Processed. Tailored. In order to increase your likelihood of seeing (and hopefully clicking on) ads.

20111215-145405.jpg

Perhaps even more insidious is the self-imposed filter bubbles, where people choose to expose themselves only to likeminded others, reinforcing whatever beliefs they’re interested in. If they don’t even see that other people have differing perspectives, I’m guessing they’re more likely to believe their perspective is The Truth™. That’s some dangerous stuff.

on censorship in the Apple app store

I’ve been trying to be a voice of reason when it comes to how Apple operates. I’d rather see them as generally trying to do the right thing, but struggling sometimes with some of the nitty gritty things. Like letting individuals interpret blanket policies for what is and is not acceptable in the app store.

I’m fine with Apple deciding that an app is unacceptable if it crashes the iPhone. If it hijacks the cellular network. If it leaks memory, data, or something.

I’m not fine with Apple censoring apps. They hold the exclusive entry for software to get installed on an iPhone or iPod Touch. There is no other authorized way to install apps, without going through the Apple app store. And that means Apple has a very serious responsibility to act honourably, and in the best interests of its customers.

The latest app store controversy is swirling around Ninjawords. An application that provides a slick UI on top of the online Wiktionary dictionary database.

Someone at Apple decided to test the app by explicitly and manually searching for “fuck” “shit” and a few other stopwords. The software was designed to disable text autocompletion for questionable terms, so the only way to find them is to type them in yourself. But the developers missed “cunt” in their autocomplete filter in the last version. So Apple responds by slapping the app with a restricted 17+ rating – meaning kids don’t have access to a good dictionary on their Apple mobile devices.

Apple, this is not cool. You don’t get to censor content, especially content in a FUCKING DICTIONARY. Jesus fucking h. christ.

fucking-dictionary

ps. this screenshot was taken of the Dictionary.app that came pre-installed on my Mac – the same Dictionary.app that my 6 year old son has unrestricted access to.

Update: Phil Schiller responded to John Gruber as a result of his post on DaringFireball.net – the response is a good one, but John’s take is pretty much the same as mine – even if Apple doesn’t censor the app themselves, there is pressure put on developers to censor themselves to avoid age-restrictive ratings. The inconsistent application of these ratings means writing an app can be a bit of  crap shoot. But, Schiller’s email is a very good sign.

overzealous antispam and campus blogging

I just had to uninstall the TanTanNoodles Simple Spam Filter from UCalgaryBlogs.ca – it’s a simple plugin that uses a dictionary lookup to try to detect what it thinks are REALLY obvious spam comment attempts. But it was a bit overzealous. Instead of just modifying the dictionary to remove some valid words (which words are valid? who gets to decide that? in which contexts?), I decided to just delete the plugin outright so that comments can be posted without censorship.

The problem showed up when a student tried to write a comment on a blog post, and used the word “rape” in the text of the comment. Simple Spam Filter threw a flag on the play, and the comment evaporated. Not cool. The student is now suspicious of the blog service, and is wondering if we’re censoring or filtering their conversations. Totally the WRONG feeling for a productive and engaging blog community. I’ve deleted the plugin, and hopefully assured the student that there was no intention of censoring their conversation.

Fun with antispam. Thanks again, Google, for making this such a wonderful problem to have to keep dealing with. It’s so thoroughly rewarding, having to battle spammers and work to make sure valid content gets around the filters that have to be constructed to prevent spammers from gaming Googlejuice.

Censorship considered harmful

This morning, I saw that James Farmers’ Edublogs service is being banned in Australia. Censored. Blocked. Verboten. It irked me, and has been bugging me all day. Now, Brian just posted about it, and I realize I need to publicly demonstrate some form of outrage at this. It’s not enough to quietly grumble, or to simply comment on James’ blog post.

Censorship is inherently evil. The goal of censorship, by definition, is to prevent access to, or dissemination of information. Some might say it is a necessary evil, but I’d respond that it’s a very slippery slope, and that it’s far too easy to slide down past a point of no return.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.
John F. Kennedy

Hearing about an educational system that imposes censorship on all of its students, teachers and staff (and yes, it is imposed, as the only internet access available in the schools is provided by The Man) scares the hell out of me. Schools are supposed to foster communication. Critical thinking. Rational thought and behaviour.

And yet it appears as though an entire school system – “powered” by the EduConnect filtering mechanism – has decided that Blogs Are Bad, and Should Be Banned. They didn’t act against a specific blog. They’re not preventing kiddie porn, or spam, or phishing (but this is what they’ll say they are doing). They are blocking open communication. And that is nothing less than evil.

“Swimming pools can be dangerous for children. To protect them, one can install locks, put up fences, and deploy pool alarms. All these measures are helpful, but by far the most important thing that one can do for one’s children is to teach them to swim.”
National Research Council, Youth, Pornography, and the Internet

In the absolute best case scenario, this is simply a side effect of a lazy, outdated, authoritarian system trying to maintain the status quo. Instead of trying to educate people about information literacy, they decide it’s easier to just block access to information Just In Case™. I’m hoping this is all there is to the story, and that a public outcry might actually affect some form of change.

But, in a worst case scenario, open communication is essentially being outlawed in favour of a government-mandated censorship and filtering system. That has no place in modern society, especially in institutions of learning.

Here’s hoping things get opened up again. If they’re blocking EduBlogs.org, there’s no telling what else may be blocked.

This morning, I saw that James Farmers’ Edublogs service is being banned in Australia. Censored. Blocked. Verboten. It irked me, and has been bugging me all day. Now, Brian just posted about it, and I realize I need to publicly demonstrate some form of outrage at this. It’s not enough to quietly grumble, or to simply comment on James’ blog post.

Censorship is inherently evil. The goal of censorship, by definition, is to prevent access to, or dissemination of information. Some might say it is a necessary evil, but I’d respond that it’s a very slippery slope, and that it’s far too easy to slide down past a point of no return.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.
John F. Kennedy

Hearing about an educational system that imposes censorship on all of its students, teachers and staff (and yes, it is imposed, as the only internet access available in the schools is provided by The Man) scares the hell out of me. Schools are supposed to foster communication. Critical thinking. Rational thought and behaviour.

And yet it appears as though an entire school system – “powered” by the EduConnect filtering mechanism – has decided that Blogs Are Bad, and Should Be Banned. They didn’t act against a specific blog. They’re not preventing kiddie porn, or spam, or phishing (but this is what they’ll say they are doing). They are blocking open communication. And that is nothing less than evil.

“Swimming pools can be dangerous for children. To protect them, one can install locks, put up fences, and deploy pool alarms. All these measures are helpful, but by far the most important thing that one can do for one’s children is to teach them to swim.”
National Research Council, Youth, Pornography, and the Internet

In the absolute best case scenario, this is simply a side effect of a lazy, outdated, authoritarian system trying to maintain the status quo. Instead of trying to educate people about information literacy, they decide it’s easier to just block access to information Just In Case™. I’m hoping this is all there is to the story, and that a public outcry might actually affect some form of change.

But, in a worst case scenario, open communication is essentially being outlawed in favour of a government-mandated censorship and filtering system. That has no place in modern society, especially in institutions of learning.

Here’s hoping things get opened up again. If they’re blocking EduBlogs.org, there’s no telling what else may be blocked.

Censorship in the Calgary Herald?

I was just reading the newspaper while eating lunch. I never read the newspaper. Perhaps this is why…

On page 8 of the first section, was an article titled “US warns allies over arms sales to China” (several articles in today’s paper start with X Warns Y over Z). Normally not a big thing. Didn’t even plan on reading the article. But, a huge photo above the article piqued my interest. It had been obviously manipulated to remove information that was part of the context of the photograph. It is a photo of some protesters, who are showing signs/placards/banners denouncing Condi’s visit to Seoul.

But, the biggest banner, front and centre in the photo, had a fake white box edited into it. Directly over top of the URL of the protestor’s organization. How is that not part of the message? It’s ok to post the photo of the banner, as long as the readers of the paper can’t find the information to fill in the backstory?

The URL they blocked out is http://alltogether.or.kr – I can’t read Korean, so I can’t verify the content. The content doesn’t matter.

This is exactly why I prefer to get my news from multiple sources.

I do realize that the photo was likely not touched up by the Herald, but somewhere between the photographer and the Associated Press food chain. The end result is the same – my local newspaper is censored.

I was just reading the newspaper while eating lunch. I never read the newspaper. Perhaps this is why…

On page 8 of the first section, was an article titled “US warns allies over arms sales to China” (several articles in today’s paper start with X Warns Y over Z). Normally not a big thing. Didn’t even plan on reading the article. But, a huge photo above the article piqued my interest. It had been obviously manipulated to remove information that was part of the context of the photograph. It is a photo of some protesters, who are showing signs/placards/banners denouncing Condi’s visit to Seoul.

But, the biggest banner, front and centre in the photo, had a fake white box edited into it. Directly over top of the URL of the protestor’s organization. How is that not part of the message? It’s ok to post the photo of the banner, as long as the readers of the paper can’t find the information to fill in the backstory?

The URL they blocked out is http://alltogether.or.kr – I can’t read Korean, so I can’t verify the content. The content doesn’t matter.

This is exactly why I prefer to get my news from multiple sources.

I do realize that the photo was likely not touched up by the Herald, but somewhere between the photographer and the Associated Press food chain. The end result is the same – my local newspaper is censored.