Tools

OpenAI may have rehired Sam Altman, but AI needs more accountability, not ‘geniuses’

by Joanne Gray 23/11/2023

The OpenAI employees had faith in Altman. They believed in his vision and they did not like that the board could dismiss him so easily. Is their upset justified? Did the board overstep its bounds? Or did it exercise a necessary check on power?

by Joanne Gray 23/11/2023

The sudden removal of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Friday was met with shock and disapproval by the company’s employees. More than 90% signed a letter threatening to leave OpenAI if the board didn’t resign and reinstate Altman. The OpenAI employees had faith in Altman. They believed in his vision and they did not like that the board could dismiss him so easily. Is their upset justified? Did the board overstep its bounds? Or did it exercise a necessary check on power? https://twitter.com/satyanadella/status/1726509045803336122?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1726509045803336122%7Ctwgr%5E53a5ba6d82ed8a383027570f3ecdffc60d632db6%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fopenais-board-is-facing-backlash-for-firing-ceo-sam-altman-but-its-good-it-had-the-power-to-218154 Silicon Valley’s ‘genius founder’ mythology The idea of a “genius founder” lies at the heart of Silicon Valley culture. Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin and Larry Page are not known as privileged men who managed to build successful businesses through a combination of hard work, smart decision-making and luck. Rather, they are celebrated as geniuses, wunderkinds, perhaps even maniacs – but always brilliant. Men who accomplished feats no one else could, because of their innate genius. A captivating founder narrative has become almost a prerequisite for any tech startup in Silicon Valley. It makes a company easier to sell and also structures power within the organisation. Throughout human history, founder mythologies have been used to explain, justify and sustain hierarchies of power. From heroes to deities to founding fathers, the founder myth provides a way to understand the current distribution of power and to unite around a figurehead. What happened this week at OpenAI was a challenge to the natural order of things in Silicon Valley. What happened to Sam? It’s quite remarkable a superstar “genius founder” such as Sam Altman wasn’t safeguarded by a company structure that could prevent his ousting. Tech company founders often create intricate structures to entrench themselves in their companies. For instance, when Google restructured into Alphabet, it created three share classes: one with standard voting rights, another with ten times the voting rights for the founders, and a third class without voting rights, mainly…

Conferences

Diversity, Inclusivity, and Good Governance: Emerging themes from the Policy & Internet Conference, 2023

by Milica Stilinovic 06/11/2023

The conference brought together leading local and international scholars and practitioners from the fields of communication, political and computational sciences and law.

by Milica Stilinovic 06/11/2023

The Policy & Internet Journal, housed at the School of Art, Communication and English, held its annual conference on the 28-29 of September in the Social Sciences Building of the University’s Camperdown campus. With an Asia-Pacific focus, the event was themed around policy inclusion within the scope of digitalisation and new technologies. The conference brought together leading local and international scholars and practitioners from the fields of communication, political and computational sciences and law. Editor Dr Joanne Gray with keynote speaker,Professor Johanna Weaver. “One of the most important items to emerge from the conference is the importance of integrating empirical research findings to inform good tech policy, or ‘good policy’, as it was referred to many times across the two days,” said Dr Jonathon Hutchinson, Editor-in-Chief of Policy & Internet. Notable speakers at the conference included Professor Johanna Weaver from the Australian National University in Canberra and Dr Justine Humphry from the University of Sydney. Presenters showcased a wide-reaching scope of papers that tackled the all-important realms of governance, policy design, content moderation, and inclusion. EIC, Dr Jonathon Hutchinsonchairing the e-Safety: Youth anddigital media policy panel. Panels included e-Safety: Youth and digital media policy, chaired by Dr Jonathon Hutchinson, with speakers from the e-Safety Commissioner — including Nikky Sloss, Manager of Children, Youth and Families — along with academics from the University of Sydney, Dr Justine Humphry and Dr Catherine Page-Jeffrey. Professor Catharine Lumby chaired Digital Hostility, policy and Social Change, which explored online hostility and its origins. The panel included academics from the University of Melbourne and RMIT, Professor Rob Cover, Dr Jay Daniel Thompson, and Dr Jennifer Beckett. The last panel of the two-day conference, chaired by Dr Joanne Gray, titled Chat GPT and Gender Bias in the Asia Pacific Region. The discussion focused on how algorithms reflect and perpetuate gender inequity, notably from the experiences of lead researcher Dr Aim Simpeng, who co-presented the initial findings with Dr Olga Boichek. ‘With…

Conferences

Policy & Internet Conference 2023: Policy innovation for inclusive internet governance

by Milica Stilinovic 12/07/2023

Together, scholars and policymakers will discuss current practices, alternative designs and the ‘unknowns’ that are required for inclusive internet governance.

by Milica Stilinovic 12/07/2023

Policy innovation for inclusive internet governance Location:Social Sciences Building (A02), Lecture Theatre 200, University of Sydney, Camperdown Campus Dates and time:28-29 September, 20238:30am – 4:30pm The Policy & Internet conference will bring together a range of international voices to demonstrate how varying approaches towards internet policy are established, embodied and engaged with by a variety of stakeholders. Together, scholars and policymakers will discuss current practices, alternative designs and the ‘unknowns’ that are required for inclusive internet governance. Conference program Register now Day One: 28 September 2023 Keynote Speaker:Professor Johanna Weaver Founding Director of the Tech Policy Design Centre at the Australian National University (ANU) A recovering diplomat, and reformed commercial litigator, Professor Weaver champions tech policy as a tool to shape technology for the long-term benefit of humanity. Prior to joining ANU, Professor Weaver completed her term as Australia’s independent expert and lead negotiator on cyber issues at the United Nations. Earlier she led the Cyber Affairs Branch at the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, working closely with Australia’s inaugural Ambassador for Cyber Affairs. Professor Weaver is a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Global Advisory Board on digital threats during conflict. Panels: e-Safety: Youth and digital media policy Chair: Dr Jonathon Hutchinson Chair of Discipline of Media and Communication at the University of Sydney He is a Chief Investigator on the Australian Research Council LIEF project ‘The International Digital Policy Observatory,’ and is also a Chief Investigator on the eSafety Commission Research project ‘Emerging online safety issues: co-creating social media education with young people.’ For 2023 and 2024, he holds the prestigious position of President of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association and is the current Editor in Chief of the Policy & Internet Journal. His most recent book, Digital Intermediation: Unseen infrastructure for cultural production, is available through Routledge. Panellists Presenters: Inclusivity Chair: Professor John Hartley, A.M Research professor in the…

Call for Papers, Submissions Closed

Call for Papers: Policy & Internet Conference 2023

by Milica Stilinovic 10/03/2023

Today, internet policy must confront issues relating to embedded interests, monopoly power, geopolitics, colonisation, warfare, automation, the environment, misinformation, safety, security and more.

by Milica Stilinovic 10/03/2023

*Submissions for this event have closed. Please refer to the event page for further details* Policy innovation for inclusive internet governance Location:Social Sciences Building (A02), Lecture Theatre 200, University of Sydney, Camperdown Campus Dates and time:28-29 September, 20238:30am – 4:30pm Call for papers The task of internet policy making has changed markedly over the past two decades. The ‘move fast, break things’ era—during which a central policy concern was how to manage economic disruption across industry sectors from entertainment to journalism, retail, transport and hospitality—has evolved into a digital era characterised by complex and interconnected social, political and economic global challenges. Today, internet policy must confront issues relating to embedded interests, monopoly power, geopolitics, colonisation, warfare, automation, the environment, misinformation, safety, security and more. As DeNardis (2014) has argued, conflicts within internet governance involve critical negotiations over economic and political power and how these conflicts are resolved “will determine some of the most important public interest issues of our time”. In seeking to resolve these conflicts, there is a risk that the dominant economic and geopolitical actors will structure outcomes in their interest. An inclusive approach to internet governance is needed if we are to achieve an equitable distribution of digital resources and opportunities. Inclusive internet governance requires that the voices, interests and values of the maginalised are included in policy making processes, so that dominant ideologies can be challenged and alternative imaginaries realised (Gurumurthy & Chami, 2016). Novelty and innovation in internet policy is itself challenging. Typically, policy making is driven by past experiences (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018) and constrained by institutional formalities, hierarchies and procedures (Bauer, 2014). Innovation, on the other hand, requires space for exploration and experimentation with opportunities “only partially known” (Bauer & Bohlin, 2022). How does policy innovation occur? This conference seeks to bring together a range of international voices to demonstrate how varying approaches towards internet policy are established, embodied and engaged with by…

Call for Papers, Submissions Closed

P&I Special Issue 2023 Call for Paper – Datafication. Platformisation. Metaverse. Global Internet Policy or a Fractured Communication Future?

by Jonathon Hutchinson 29/09/2022

Within our current online and hyper-connected lives, is it possible to have such a thing as global internet policy?

by Jonathon Hutchinson 29/09/2022

*Submissions for this event have closed. Please refer to the event page for further details* Datafication. Platformisation. Metaverse. Global Internet Policy or a Fractured Communication Future? Special Issue Call for Papers, Volume 15, Issue 4 Datafication. Platformisation. Metaverse. What is the state of global internet policy? Within our current online and hyper-connected lives, is it possible to have such a thing as global internet policy? Building off the 2022 Policy & Internet Conference, this special issue addresses the complex and multiple perspectives of internet policy from around the globe. As we evolve through the Anthropocene and attempt to navigate the significant challenges humanity currently faces, we are consistently reminded of the most pressing critical issues of our epoch. Economic systems are the point of breaking, industrial action mobilised by unions is at an all-time high, inflation is rising, workers’ pay continues to fall, and the stability of our political systems has come into question. Our health systems are under unfathomable stress, refugee numbers are increasing through displacement, and the war in Ukraine continues, all of which adds to the growing global societal, economic and political pressures. And yet, concurrently, our connectivity through digital media and its surrounding environments is at an all-time high, arguably from the rise of technology players providing suites of social media platforms and its supporting infrastructures that enable a seamless and convenient, always-on lifestyle. The same app that enables us to chat with our friends and family can also book our rideshares, order our food, pay for our purchases and tempt us to become internet celebrities. What was once framed as user generated content activity has now become a normalised cultural pastime, as TikTok influencers feed the demotic turn that sees ordinary folk become internet superstars in rather small timeframes. At the same time, policymakers are reforming legislation to address the incomprehensible imbalance of power that is generated by technology giants. One of the immediate issues…

Conferences

Policy & Internet Conference 2022: Datafication. Platformisation. Metaverse. The state of global internet policy

by admin 12/08/2022

Examining how the current developments within digital media spaces has a regulatory impact.

by admin 12/08/2022

Datafication. Platformisation. Metaverse.The state of global internet policy Location:The Women’s College 15 Carillon Avenue,Newtown NSW 2042 AustraliaDay One: The Sibyl CentreDay Two: Menzies Common Room Dates and time:28-29 September, 20228:30am – 6:30pm Our invited speakers will address the conference theme, Datafication. Platformisation. Metaverse. The state of global internet policy, which examines how the current developments within digital media spaces has a regulatory impact. The conference will present cutting edge research from areas around the globe that address issues such as what is the current state of play for the platform society and its consequent internet regulation, how internet regulation include/exclude groups and individuals, and the consequences of contemporary communication environment. Through a series of keynote presentations and plenary panels, the 2022 Policy & Internet Conference will set the trajectory for the next 12 months of scholarship in this space. Morning tea, lunch, afternoon tea, and a cocktail event (Day Two) included. Conference program Register now Day One: 28 September 2022 Keynote Speaker:Professor John Hartley Research professor in the Department of Media and Communications at the University of Sydney Previously he was Head of the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University, Dean of Creative Industries at QUT, is John Curtin Distinguished Emeritus Professor at Curtin University. Hartley founded the International Journal of Cultural Studies (Sage), which he edited for 20 years, and Cultural Science Journal (Sciendo). His recent books On the Digital Semiosphere (Bloomsbury) and Advanced Introduction to Creative Industries (Elgar) seek to widen the scope of global technological and media analysis to include the crucial role of culture. Keynote Speaker:Associate Professor Crystal Abidin Associate Professor, Principal Research Fellow, & ARC DECRA Fellow in Internet Studies, Programme Lead of Social Media Pop Cultures at the Centre for Culture and Technology (CCAT) at Curtin University. She is also Affiliate Researcher with the Media Management and Transformation Centre at Jönköping University. She recently received the International Communication Association Popular Communication Early Career Scholar Prize and ABC TOP 5 Humanities Fellowship. Panels: Emerging Internet Policy…

Call for Papers, Submissions Closed

Special Issue Call for Papers – The Regulation Turn?

by Jonathon Hutchinson 16/04/2021

Do these technologies offer ease of connectivity, or do they have the potential to be weaponised and misappropriated to further political agendas?

by Jonathon Hutchinson 16/04/2021

*Submissions for this event have closed. Please refer to the event page for further details* Policy & Internet Journal: CFP Special Issue – Issue 1, 2022 Special Issue Editors: Jonathon Hutchinson, University of Sydney & Milica Stilinovic, University of Sydney The Internet Regulation Turn? Policy, internet and technology With the recent media focus on the regulation of social media platforms within our society, users, citizens, human rights advocacy groups, policymakers and content producers have all questioned the validity of these communication technologies. Do these technologies offer ease of connectivity, or do they have the potential to be weaponised and misappropriated to further political agendas, disrupt democratic processes, and abuse an individual’s right to (or assumption of) privacy? Recently, we have observed governments calling on platforms to account for their misalignment with local media markets. Regulators are asking platform providers for increased transparency into their distribution processes. Advocacy groups are asking for increased visibility. The custodians of the internet (Gillespie, 2018) are asking for better tools to manage their communities. At the same time, users are questioning the uses of their data. Nonetheless, our societies are enjoying the benefits of our contemporary communication technologies for a variety of reasons. We see new markets emerging based on platform economic models, increased connectivity in times of physical isolation, new trends and connections are emerging, new cultural conventions are being forged between disparate individuals, and friends and families enjoy the increased ease and connectivity of communicating with their loved ones. To say ‘if you do not pay for the product, you are the product’ (Orlowski, 2020) grossly misrepresents the entirety of the social dilemma we have found ourselves in – a hyper- commercialised and politicised internet of the 2020s. To combat this, we are observing several versions of a ‘Balkinized splinternet’ (Lemley, 2020) emerging, where nations and users are designing and creating their own version of what was conceived as a way to share…

Politics & Government

Five reasons ‘technological solutions’ are a distraction from the Irish border problem

by Helen Margetts 21/02/2019

Discussing the focus on ‘technological solutions’ in the context of the Irish border debate.

by Helen Margetts 21/02/2019

Technology is increasingly touted as an alternative to the Irish backstop, especially in light of the government’s difficulty to find a Brexit strategy that can command a majority in the House of Commons. As academics, we have been following the debate around the role of technology in monitoring the border with interest, but also scepticism and frustration. Technology can foster government innovation in countless ways and digital technologies, in particular, have the potential to transform the way in which the government makes policy and designs public services. Yet, in the context of the Irish border debate, the focus on ‘technological solutions’ is becoming a red herring and distracts from the political choices ahead. Technology cannot solve the Irish border problem and it is time to face the facts. 1: Technology cannot ensure a ‘frictionless border’ Any legal or regulatory restrictions on the movement of goods or people between the UK and the Republic of Ireland post-Brexit will make border-related friction inevitable. Setting the restrictions is a matter of political agreements. Technology can help enforce the legal or regulatory restrictions, but it cannot prevent the introduction of friction compared to the status quo. For example, technology may speed up documentation, processing, and inspections, but it cannot eliminate the need for these procedures, whose existence will mean new burdens on those undergoing them. 2: There will be a need for new infrastructure at or near the border Technology may make it possible for some checks to be carried out away from the border. For example, machine learning algorithms can assist in identifying suspicious vehicles and police forces can stop and inspect them away from the border. Regardless of where the relevant inspections are carried out, however, there will be a need for new infrastructure at or near the border, such as camera systems that record the identity of the vehicles crossing the frontier. The amount of new infrastructure needed will depend on…

Politics & Government

Can “We the People” really help draft a national constitution? (sort of..)

by David Sutcliffe 16/08/2018

There is a clear trend of greater public participation in the process of constitution making, and with the growth of e-democracy tools, this trend is likely to continue.

by David Sutcliffe 16/08/2018

Þingvellir: location of the Althing, the national parliament of Iceland, established in 930 AD with sessions held at the location until 1798. Image: Luc Van Braekel (Flickr CC BY 2.0).

As innovations like social media and open government initiatives have become an integral part of politics in the twenty-first century, there is increasing interest in the possibility of citizens directly participating in the drafting of legislation. Indeed, there is a clear trend of greater public participation in the process of constitution making, and with the growth of e-democracy tools, this trend is likely to continue. However, this view is certainly not universally held, and a number of recent studies have been much more skeptical about the value of public participation, questioning whether it has any real impact on the text of a constitution. Following the banking crisis, and a groundswell of popular opposition to the existing political system in 2009, the people of Iceland embarked on a unique process of constitutional reform. Having opened the entire drafting process to public input and scrutiny, these efforts culminated in Iceland’s 2011 draft crowdsourced constitution: reputedly the world’s first. In his Policy & Internet article “When Does Public Participation Make a Difference? Evidence From Iceland’s Crowdsourced Constitution”, Alexander Hudson examines the impact that the Icelandic public had on the development of the draft constitution. He finds that almost 10 percent of the written proposals submitted generated a change in the draft text, particularly in the area of rights. This remarkably high number is likely explained by the isolation of the drafters from both political parties and special interests, making them more reliant on and open to input from the public. However, although this would appear to be an example of successful public crowdsourcing, the new constitution was ultimately rejected by parliament. Iceland’s experiment with participatory drafting therefore demonstrates the possibility of successful online public engagement — but also the need to connect the masses with the political elites. It was the disconnect between these groups that triggered the initial protests and constitutional reform, but also that led to its ultimate failure. We caught…

Politics & Government

Bursting the bubbles of the Arab Spring: the brokers who bridge ideology on Twitter

by David Sutcliffe 27/07/2018

Scholarly interest in online activism has grown with its use. Do social media really challenge traditional politics?

by David Sutcliffe 27/07/2018

Thousands of protesters in Tahrir Square, Cairo, on Friday May 13, 2011. Image by Hossam el-Hamalawy.

Online activism has become increasingly visible, with social media platforms being used to express protest and dissent from the Arab Spring to #MeToo. Scholarly interest in online activism has grown with its use, together with disagreement about its impact. Do social media really challenge traditional politics? Some claim that social media have had a profound and positive effect on modern protest — the speed of information sharing making online networks highly effective in building revolutionary movements. Others argue that this activity is merely symbolic: online activism has little or no impact, dilutes offline activism, and weakens social movements. Given online activity doesn’t involve the degree of risk, trust, or effort required on the ground, they argue that it can’t be considered to be “real” activism. In this view, the Arab Spring wasn’t simply a series of “Twitter revolutions”. Despite much work on offline social movements and coalition building, few studies have used social network analysis to examine the influence of brokers of online activists (i.e. those who act as a bridge between different ideological groups), or their role in information diffusion across a network. In her Policy & Internet article “Brokerage Roles and Strategic Positions in Twitter Networks of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution”, Deena Abul-Fottouh tests whether social movements theory of networks and coalition building — developed to explain brokerage roles in offline networks, between established parties and organisations — can also be used to explain what happens online. Social movements theory suggests that actors who occupy an intermediary structural position between different ideological groups are more influential than those embedded only in their own faction. That is, the “bridging ties” that link across political ideologies have a greater impact on mobilisation than the bonding ties within a faction. Indeed, examining the Egyptian revolution and ensuing crisis, Deena finds that these online brokers were more evident during the first phase of movement solidarity between liberals, islamists, and socialists than in…

Articles