• It’s there, in one article. In “Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony to Congress: the key moments”, Zuckerberg is quoted as answering: every single time you go to share something on Facebook, whether it's a photo in Facebook, or a message, every single time, there's a control right there about who you're going to be sharing it with ... and you can change that and control that in line. The issue is right in the “there’s a control right there” part: what other humans can or cannot see about you inside Facebook does not matter at all.
  • 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.

  • 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:

  • “Seems like Facebook is going downhill for here. Perhaps opportunity to convert it into a global coop?” When I saw this question asked online, I couldn’t help but repeat asking how to convert Facebook, Twitter and similar platforms into a global coop is not the right question. The right question is: WHY should anyone do such a thing? What good would it make?

  • 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.