Matt Mullenweg’s Answer May Have Been Somewhat Misleading

Matt was quite specific in his answer to my question — he specifically focused on WordPress.ORG

Yet he gave this answer from the stage which is a premier focus of many WordPress users’ attention: WordCamp Europe — i.e., WordCamp.ORG

WordCamp Europe had a “LiveStream” — hosted at YouTube.COM

Why would WordPress users be monetised this way — having their data incorporated into Alphabet’s monetisation models? Was it perhaps because Google was the first and foremost sponsor of WordCamp Europe 2022?

WordPress, WordCamp and Google are three distinct marketplaces, but there may indeed be a sort of affiliated network of cross-media promotion, monetisation, advertising and such going on — or is this completely “out of the question“?

FaceBook Whistleblower Frances Haugen Presents Idea (for Government Regulation) that All Search Engine Algorithms Should Display Search Results in Reverse-Chronological Order

Your Undivided Attention Podcast Episode 42: Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen in Conversation (with Tristan Harris & Aza Raskin):

Aza Raskin:

It also means that we’re talking about not just Facebook, but a business model more generally. And as you’re pointing out Tristan, that means it can’t be something that, the solution can’t be applied only to Facebook. It has to be applied to the entire industry at once.

Frances Haugen:

Yeah. I think it’s a thing where we’re going to have to have government oversight and have them step in and say, Hey, section 230 right now gives immunity for content that is supplied by users, right? So it’s like if platforms aren’t the ones creating content, then they’re not responsible for the content that gets created.

But platforms are responsible for the choices they make in designing their algorithms. And I think exempting those algorithm and choices from 230 and forcing platforms to have to publish enough data that people could hold them accountable. It’s an interesting strategy for forcing more platforms to go towards chronological ranking. Because the reality is, if people can choose between an addiction-based, growth-hacked, algorithmic engagement ranking based feed, or one that is time-based, they’re always going to pick the one that’s engagement based. Because it is stickier. It does make you consume more content.

But at the same time, it also makes people depressed. It also causes eating disorders in kids. There’s real consequences to these systems. And I just think in the end, if you actually talked to people and you said, “Do you want computers to choose what you focus on? Or do you want to choose what you focus on?” I think from a personal sovereignty perspective, we should all want to have control over what we focus on, not have computers tell us. Especially Facebook’s computers.

See also “Right now 30+ journalists are finishing up a coordinated series of articles based on thousands of pages of leaked documents”

Russell Brand on The Social Dilemma

Keywords: media , psychology , ape , apes , human , humane , humanity , language , monkey , monkeys , natural language , populism , primates , propaganda

Many insightful remarks about the new Netflix documentary from Russell Brand — but in my humble opinion he overlooks something very significant which distinguishes us from other primates: the fact that humans evolved in a way that allowed us to develop the technology commonly referred to as natural language. This technological innovation also allows us to remain independent of the brand name platforms repeatedly mentioned in the film (which may actually be a kind of advertising / ad placement).