I recently observed that the only missing voices at a coming Summit on Agriculture seemed to be… farmers, and digital technologies that THEY could design and control. This is the answer I just received from the organizers of the IoT Vertical and Topical Summit for Agriculture:
Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. So said Mark Zuckerberg, and so far almost nobody seems to have noticed his source.
I discovered only this morning that next May there will be a very interesting meeting about “The Digital Revolution - Farming 4.0”. Its announcement, however, makes me wonder how complete that meeting will be.
It’s time for the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world to become irrelevant, instead. Even if they are cooperatives
Italian newspaper Repubblica interviewed Evgeny Morozov about the Cambridge Analityca scandal, and the related #deletefacebook case. Both the printed and the online version of the interview illustrate the pervasiveness and dangers of Big Data and Big Tech in more than one way. This is the paper version:
This is an answer to a question I just received about the percloud, my proposal for really usable alternatives to centralized social networks and services like Gmail and Facebook.
A new lobbying group is fighting Right to Repair laws, in a way that proves that certain things should be AVOIDED at all costs, not repaired.
- Fake news, echo chambers, filter bubbles: how much do they REALLY create or influence people’s opinions on politics, or anything else? What is the real “polarization” created by social media like Facebook, and what are its real consequences, if any? In this post I have collected some tweets, quotes and links showing that, as Facebook would say “it’s complicated”. But real. It's complicated The starting point is the New York Times article titled “Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown”, whose subtitle is “It’s very hard to change people’s minds, especially when so many are already committed partisans.
Wired reports that a new dating app sends users a swab kit in order to “match potential mates based on genetic and social compatibility”. But Wired also correctly explains that “the science of genetic compatibility applied to dating is dubious at best”. If you are lucky, I add.
There’s some new dog-like robot who just “learned to open doors”. Most people are excited, or scared, by the dog itself. Maybe they should worry more about the door.