Suchergebnisse

In December 2016, shortly after the US presidential election, Facebook and five US news and fact-checking organizations—ABC News, Associated Press, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, and Snopes—entered a partnership to combat misinformation. Motivated by a variety of concerns and values, relying on different understandings of misinformation, and with a diverse set of stakeholders in mind, they created a collaboration designed to leverage the partners' different forms of cultural power, technological skill, and notions of public service. Concretely, the partnership centers around managing a flow of stories that may be considered false. Here's how it works: through a proprietary process that mixes algorithmic and human intervention, Facebook identifies candidate stories; these stories are then served to the five news and fact-checking partners through a partners-only dashboard that ranks stories according to popularity. Partners independently choose stories from the dashboard, do their usual fact-checking work, and append their fact-checks to the stories' entries in the dashboards. Facebook uses these fact-checks to adjust whether and how it shows potentially false stories to its users. Variously seen as a public relations stunt, a new type of collaboration, or an unavoidable coupling of organizations through circumstances beyond either's exclusive control, the partnership emerged as a key example of platform-publisher collaboration. This report contextualizes the partnership, traces its dynamics through a series of interviews, and uses it to motivate a general set of questions that future platform press partnerships might ask themselves before collaborating.

Introduction -- What kind of press freedom does democracy need? -- How has the press historically made its freedom? -- How is networked press freedom a question of infrastructure? -- How free is the networked press? -- Conclusion

Part of understanding the meaning and power of algorithms means asking what new demands they might make of ethical frameworks, and how they might be held accountable to ethical standards. I develop a definition of networked information algorithms (NIAs) as assemblages of institutionally situated code, practices, and norms with the power to create, sustain, and signify relationships among people and data through minimally observable, semiautonomous action. Starting from Merrill's prompt to see ethics as the study of "what we ought to do," I examine ethical dimensions of contemporary NIAs. Specifically, in an effort to sketch an empirically grounded, pragmatic ethics of algorithms, I trace an algorithmic assemblage's power to convene constituents, suggest actions based on perceived similarity and probability, and govern the timing and timeframes of ethical action.

Understanding and evaluating systems for open collaboration depends, in part, on appreciating their normative and institutional contexts. In this article, I examine press-public collaboration by tracing how and why news organizations both distance themselves from and depend on networked actors outside the newsroom to achieve professional and organizational goals. I situate contemporary press-public networks within infrastructure scholarship, review their relationship to models of the public sphere, and trace the motivations and assumptions embedded within news organizations' application programming interfaces, software toolkits that let those outside the newsroom access and repurpose journalistic data.

Anticipatory infrastructures assemble sensors that are ready to detect, networks primed to share data, scientists prepared to confirm events, and news organizations poised to tell stories. This article explains how public time is articulated through sensor-mediated communications by examining two anticipatory infrastructures. Each infrastructure uses similar earthquake data to detect, report on, and convene material publics around earthquakes in Southern California. They are integral to structuring rhythms, coordinating syncronizations, setting deadlines, and making events timely, meaningful, and actionable, yet their governance lives in no one place. Instead, they emerge from an assemblage of sensors, networks, devices, algorithms, people, data, organizations, professional practices, and normative theories of the public. By comparing two different anticipatory infrastructures, we show how imagined publics, forms of journalistic storytelling, representations of earthquake events, and system maintenance can convene different public temporalities. We identify four dynamics involved in making these variable temporalities in material publics: how human-machine relations organize time, how professional norms of timeliness collide, how publics are anticipated by infrastructures, and how sensor infrastructures are maintained or decay over time.

To understand news rhythms, scholars have primarily studied how the rituals and routines of news organizations align with the practices and expectations of audiences. The rhythms of today's networked press, though, are set not only by journalists and consumers but also by largely invisible digital infrastructures: software, data, and technologies from outside newsrooms that are increasingly intertwined with journalistic work. Here, we argue that the rhythms of the contemporary, networked press live in the materials, practices, and values of hybrid, time-setting sociotechnical systems, a new concept we call anticipatory news infrastructure. We explicate this concept through a typology of sociotechnical dynamics, showing how the networked press is poised to sense events, structure journalistic work, predict and commodify traffic, architect audience relations, and categorize content. We argue that these infrastructures anticipate possible public life, thus creating anticipation publics through their largely invisible power to shape expectations of journalists and audiences alike.

Models for understanding and holding systems accountable have long rested upon ideals and logics of transparency. Being able to see a system is sometimes equated with being able to know how it works and govern it—a pattern that recurs in recent work about transparency and computational systems. But can "black boxes' ever be opened, and if so, would that ever be sufficient? In this article, we critically interrogate the ideal of transparency, trace some of its roots in scientific and sociotechnical epistemological cultures, and present 10 limitations to its application. We specifically focus on the inadequacy of transparency for understanding and governing algorithmic systems and sketch an alternative typology of algorithmic accountability grounded in constructive engagements with the limitations of transparency ideals.

Why is news sometimes free? Although the commercial press's history is, in part, the search for new forms of commodification, journalism sometimes distances itself from commerce and economically decommodifies its work. We investigate one such moment in the form of "paywall exceptions": instances when online news organizations drop or temporarily reconfigure their paywalls to let news circulate unmetered among subscribers and nonsubscribers alike. We document 69 exceptions from 1999 to 2015, categorize publishers' publicly stated rationales, and reflect on what they reveal about the networked press's negotiations between democratic and commercial logics.

Plutôt que d'abandonner ou d'écraser l'idée de la liberté de la presse – en la considérant comme naïve ou anachronique – mon but est de la faire revivre et de la redéployer pour plaider en faveur d'une valeur normative particulière : le droit du public à entendre . Je prétends que l'image dominante, historique et professionnalisée de la liberté de la presse – généralement définie comme toutes les libertés dont doivent bénéficier les journalistes pour poursuivre un intérêt public évident – privilégie le droit individuel à la parole sur le droit du public à entendre, alors que ce dernier mérite d'être remis au cœur de nos débats.

Grindr is a popular location-based social networking application for smartphones, predominantly used by gay men. This study investigates why users leave Grindr. Drawing on interviews with 16 men who stopped using Grindr, this article reports on the varied definitions of leaving, focusing on what people report leaving, how they leave and what they say leaving means to them. We argue that leaving is not a singular moment, but a process involving layered social and technical acts – that understandings of and departures from location-based media are bound up with an individual's location. Accounts of leaving Grindr destabilize normative definitions of both 'Grindr' and 'leaving', exposing a set of relational possibilities and spatial arrangements within and around which people move. We conclude with implications for the study of non-use and technological departure.