Posts

Posted on

There ain’t no such thing as a Russiagate

At the time of the events, Linkedin and the general media were flooded with comments on what was only a hypothesis (Russia’s involvement in conditioning the outcome of the American elections), with the plethora of implications on armies of trolls remotely controlled ? to manipulate consciences etc. etc.. It was a fake, but the damage caused by that news is more than real.

I refer, in particular, to the embarrassing institutional declarations on the gravity of a non-existent fact, not at all mitigated by the inevitable “if confirmed, the news would be serious”.

Fortunately, international diplomacy is still sufficiently keen to avoid the consequences of the “social media frenzy” that has also infected the institutions and that pushes its representatives to speak too quickly. Continue reading “There ain’t no such thing as a Russiagate”

Posted on

“Problematic” or “inappropriate” content: a Rose by Other Name

Self and pre-emptive censorship against non-illegal contents. This is the “other name” of the politically correct wording chosen by Facebook and Instagram to support their content removal policies.

Mind, as private companies Facebook and Instagram have the right to do whatever they want with their own services. And if they decide that perfectly legal contents have not to be accepted that’s absolutely fine.

One would expect, though, that they would have called the Rose with its own name: Censorship.

Posted on

The Battle of Copyright-Fishes

Contrary to the public opinion, copryight’s abuses don’t belong to “pirates” only.

Using the “weight” of his business size, singer Ariana Grande allowed photographers to participate to her show only if they surrender their copyright over the picture they shoot.

That’s rather interesting and disturbing because to criticize this decision, f the photography industry “shouted fire” claiming an infringement of the freedom of press.

But ? the Arianagrandegate is about money, not freedom, and it is unfair – to say the least -to invoke free speech to protect a pure business interest.

So, it will be interesting to see how this will evolve: copyright fishes that peacefully swim in the same pond now discover that friends has become foes.

End everybody knows what happens when a smaller fish meets a bigger one.

 ?

Posted on

If software were a military weapon

Software manufacturing is often compared to car building, and there are plenty of such analogies available, ranging from jokes to serious analysis.

A less considered match is the manufacturing of military weapons in contrast to sport weapons.

The history of the US Army contest that led Beretta to a winning over the German-Swiss Sig Sauer, thus securing the Italian company a rich supply contract of the “92” (renamed “M9” in the US Army naming system) is revealing.

The M9 was “the” most reliable gun in the market, being able to fire thousands of bullets without malfunctions, though enough to stand against the harshest environmental conditions and easy to both operate and maintains. Soldiers could rely upon this weapon to have the job done and not being let alone in critical moments.

How many software (from firmware, to operating systems, to platforms) are built like a Beretta M9?

Posted on

Facebook to move from a public square into a living room. When the cure is worse than the disease

According to The Conversation, there is an upcoming shift of Facebook’s approach to its user privacy. This quote from Mark Zuckerberg clarifies the position of the company:

Over the last 15 years, Facebook and Instagram have helped people connect with friends, communities, and interests in the digital equivalent of a town square. But people increasingly also want to connect privately in the digital equivalent of the living room.

While the news has been (cautiously) saluted as an improvement of Facebook’s attitude towards the core of its business, actually the proposed cure is worse than the disease.

If, as Zuckerberg says, Facebook is going to move from a public square to a living room, this actually weakens the meaning of privacy because:

1 – it sends the message that privacy equals secrecy, while the notion of privacy is far wider,

2 – if everything is private, nothing is private. By not making
distinction between the intimate sphere and the public space, Facebook is
turning people into faceless being.

3 – Furthermore, by enhancing the “private ring” notion, people will lose the main role of a social network (in the sociological meaning of the word): challenging our individual and assumptions, become accustomed to diversity.