- BERKMAN KLEIN CENTER CYBERLAW CLINIC HOW TO
- BERKMAN KLEIN CENTER CYBERLAW CLINIC PROFESSIONAL
- BERKMAN KLEIN CENTER CYBERLAW CLINIC FREE
You can also visit to view publications related to the Principled Artificial Intelligence Project and the Berkman Klein Center’s previous project Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights: Opportunities & Risks.įor more information, feel free to get in touch with Jessica Fjeld at. If you would like to be notified when the white paper is published, sign up here. This summer, we will publish the final data visualization along with the dataset itself and a white paper detailing our assumptions, methodology and key findings. We are excited to share this visualization in draft form and invite you to provide feedback and ask questions by filling out this form. To that end, we have created a data visualization that summarizes our findings. It is our hope that the Principled Artificial Intelligence project will be a starting point for further scholarship and advocacy on this topic. We also collected data on whether and how the principles documents referenced human rights, which just under half did. Many of the documents address all of these themes all hit at least a few.
BERKMAN KLEIN CENTER CYBERLAW CLINIC PROFESSIONAL
We expected to find some key themes, and indeed we uncovered eight: accountability, fairness and non-discrimination, human control of technology, privacy, professional responsibility, promotion of human values, safety and security, and transparency and explainability. A large variety of actors are represented, from individual tech companies’ guidelines for their own implementation of AI technology, to multi-stakeholder coalitions, to publications from national governments that incorporate ethical principles as part of an overall AI strategy. We collected up to 80 data points about each one, including the actor behind the document, the date of publication, the intended audience, and the geographical scope, as well as detailed data on the principles themselves. Our current dataset includes 32 such principles documents. One of the people criticizing Substack was Google’s Vice President of Privacy Product Management Rob Leathern, who said content moderation policies “can’t be afterthoughts anymore for serious businesses.” So, presumably some people in the company’s management would be receptive to more censorship at Google Podcasts, just as the Times advocates.Full visualization available at. Also on rt.com Disgraced establishment journalists, Big Tech attack independent platform Substack in ever-expanding definition of 'harassment' It was accused of platforming “harassment” (alternatively: factual criticism) of Times reporter Taylor Lorenz, and even of being a threat to journalism in general (by allowing independent journalists to sell content without newsroom oversight). The Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University is now accepting fellowship applications for the 2017-2018 academic year through - College, Fellowship Program, Harvard. Another popular target for this kind of attack is Substack, an independent publishing site.
The desire to protect the public from reading or hearing something bad online has recently become a major theme for the left legacy media. “It seems like made a decision to embrace an audience that wants more offensive content rather than constrain that content for the sake of safety and respect,” Fjeld argued. Parler was infamously kicked out by Silicon Valley in the wake of the January 6 Capitol Hill riot. She compared Google’s platform to Parler, a pro-free speech alternative to Twitter widely vilified in the mainstream media as a supposed hotbed of right-wing extremism.
BERKMAN KLEIN CENTER CYBERLAW CLINIC HOW TO
“Google is perfectly well aware of how to moderate content if it cares to,” Jessica Fjeld, the assistant director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, told the newspaper. Also on rt.com Big Tech CEOs defend their censorship practices at Capitol Hill ‘disinformation’ hearing The Times finds objectionable the very fact that someone like Jones can find a way into people’s ears through Google’s app, whereas companies like Twitter and Facebook “have become more vigilant in recent years in their attempts to rein in the spread of harmful content.” Some experts interviewed for the story accuse the company of putting profits before people’s safety. It doesn’t host the audio records and would only occasionally remove links to them from aggregation when required by law. The tech giant treats its podcast app similar to its search engine – an instrument for finding stuff people are interested in. The New York Times March 26, 2021įor instance, one could find there Alex Jones, whose concerted deplatforming by Big Tech in 2018 set the stage for the increasingly restrictive policing of content today, culminating in an ouster of a sitting US president. The company says it does not want to limit what users can find. Google Podcasts is distinct among major platforms in its tolerance of white supremacists, pro-Nazi groups and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones.
0 kommentar(er)
