Select a result to preview

DL 193

Freedom to Press

Published: 2019-04-13 • 📧 Newsletter

Welcome to Digitally Literate 193. Freedom to press.

Hi all, my name is Ian O'Byrne and welcome to Digitally Literate. In this newsletter, I try to synthesize what happened this week so you can be digitally literate as well.

I posted a couple of things this week:

🔖 Key Takeaways

📺 Watch

In this video published on April 28, 2017, Katie Bouman talks about how we might be able to use the Event Horizon Telescope to image a black hole.

Bouman's 2017 TED talk predicts the breakthrough that would captivate the world two years later. She explains the computational challenge: radio telescopes worldwide must be synchronized to create Earth-sized virtual telescope, then algorithms must stitch fragmented data into coherent image. The talk demonstrates scientific communication at its best—complex problem made accessible without condescension. Bouman's evident excitement about the work, her clear explanation of methodology, her acknowledgment of team effort—all would later contrast sharply with the trolling that followed the actual achievement.

📚 Read

First of all, we should all be excited/amazed that scientists were able to globally connect a network of radio telescopes, and use computing power to stitch this content together…and peer into a black hole. That, by itself is amazing.

Second, most of the world learned about this breakthrough as it was accompanied by a photo showing Dr. Katie Bouman looking on in wonder as the results came through.

Following the initial wave of euphoria about this news, and the viral photo, a number of trolls on Reddit and Twitter circulated memes contrasting Bouman's work with that of Andrew Chael, a white male scientist who is also a member of the Event Horizon Telescope team. Algorithms on YouTube and search engines soon started pushing these memes to accelerate this trolling narrative.

The truth about the team behind the project, and Bouman's response is obviously far more nuanced.

The episode reveals algorithmic complicity in harassment. Trolls created narrative that Bouman received undeserved credit—memes claimed Andrew Chael wrote most code. Chael himself refuted this, noting the collaborative nature of scientific work and explicitly supporting Bouman. But algorithms don't distinguish truth from engagement—provocative content spreads regardless of accuracy. YouTube's recommendation system pushed harassment videos; search engines surfaced trolling memes. The platforms profited from controversy they amplified. For educators, the lesson is double: celebrate women in science, and teach how platforms weaponize celebration into backlash.

Early Thursday morning, Ecuador terminated the asylum status of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, and he was arrested by British authorities. Shortly after, the Justice Department released a one count indictment against Assange, alleging that he conspired to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act with whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2010.

There are layers of story (known & unknown) behind the scenes around WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. For now, I'd like to focus on the possible chilling effects on the freedom of the press, and the free flow of information online. For more on this perspective, please review the responses from the ACLU, EFF, and the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

Whatever one thinks of Assange personally—and there's much to criticize—the legal precedent concerns press freedom advocates. The indictment charges conspiracy for allegedly helping Manning crack a password hash. Standard journalism involves helping sources provide information securely. If helping sources bypass security systems constitutes conspiracy, investigative journalism becomes legally precarious. The ACLU, EFF, and Freedom of the Press Foundation all expressed concern regardless of views on Assange. The chilling effect: sources and journalists may avoid each other fearing criminal liability. The line between protected journalism and criminal conspiracy remains dangerously unclear.

Kara Swisher in the NY Times on the growing control that tech companies have over our digital lives. It is time for us to take some of our power back in this exchange.

In other words, get over it? I don't intend to, and I don't think anyone else should, either. While we may have zero privacy, it doesn't mean that we have given up our right to control our digital selves. In fact, as tech marches on, that might be the one right that needs to be protected most of all.

Swisher channels collective frustration into call to action. The "get over it" response to privacy concerns—accepting surveillance as inevitable modern condition—represents surrender disguised as pragmatism. Swisher refuses this framing. Zero privacy is present condition, not permanent destiny. The right to control digital selves can be asserted even now—through legislation, through collective action, through individual choices. The fight isn't hopeless; it's necessary. Tech companies benefit from fatalism; empowered users threaten business models built on exploitation. Swisher's piece is reminder that rights must be claimed, not merely mourned.

Kyle Korver shared his commentary on privilege and institutional racism. Many on Twitter applauded this as a powerful, must-read essay. Still others are tired of the "standing ovation" given when a person of privilege points out the obvious. My favorite response to this Korver piece is this video from Jason Whitlock.

For me, the focus is on the difference between listening and hearing. I'm still continuing my journey.

Korver's essay sparked necessary debate about white ally contributions. His account of witnessing teammate Thabo Sefolosha's police injury, his reflection on accumulated privilege, his call for white people to be "uncomfortable"—all resonated with some readers. Others questioned why white acknowledgment of obvious inequality deserves celebration. The tension is real: encouraging white engagement risks centering white experience in conversations about Black suffering; dismissing white engagement risks losing potential allies. The listening/hearing distinction matters—listening is passive reception, hearing is active understanding leading to action. What actions follow the essay?

A powerful piece by Robin DiAngelo on niceness and the reproduction of racial inequality.

We can begin by acknowledging ourselves as racial beings with a particular and limited perspective on race. We can attempt to understand the racial realities of people of color through authentic interaction rather than through the media or through unequal relationships. We can insist that racism be discussed in our workplaces and a professed commitment to racial equity be demonstrated by actual outcomes. We can get involved in organizations working for racial justice. These efforts require that we continually challenge our own socialization and investments in racism and put what we profess to value into the actual practice of our lives. This takes courage, and niceness without strategic and intentional anti-racist action is not courageous.

DiAngelo's response to Korver-style reflections clarifies what's missing. Niceness—being polite, avoiding offense, treating individuals fairly—doesn't disrupt systems. Racism operates through structures, policies, accumulated advantages—none addressed by interpersonal pleasantness. Strategic anti-racist action means: challenging racist statements even when uncomfortable, advocating for policy changes even when costly, redistributing resources even when inconvenient. DiAngelo demands outcomes over intentions. Professing values is easy; living them requires courage. The distinction between niceness and justice: niceness maintains relationships, justice disrupts inequity.

🔨 Do

Two-Factor Authentication Evolution

You should all be using two-factor authentication on your devices and services. For me, this means using Authy to enable and save these codes on my phone. When I log in to an account, I need to pull out my phone, open Authy, read the six digit code, and type it into the browser.

Google/Android are proposing a new system that will use Bluetooth to have the phone talk to the computer and eliminate this next step. I've been thinking about purchasing a physical security key (more on that soon). This looks like a possible (easier) next step.

Current 2FA creates friction: phone retrieval, app opening, code reading, manual entry. Each step is obstacle to adoption. Google's Bluetooth proposal eliminates friction while maintaining security—proximity proves possession. The phone in your pocket automatically authenticates login attempts on nearby computers. Physical security keys (YubiKey, etc.) provide even stronger protection—phishing-proof because authentication requires physical device presence. The evolution shows security improving alongside usability. The goal: make secure behavior the easy default rather than conscious choice.

🤔 Consider

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." — Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche's warning resonates across this issue's themes. Bouman faced tribal backlash for individual achievement. Assange faces state power for individual action. Korver risks tribal disapproval for individual reflection. DiAngelo demands individual courage against tribal niceness norms. Owning yourself means thinking independently despite social pressure, speaking truth despite consequences, acting justly despite inconvenience. The price—loneliness, fear, conflict—is real. The alternative—tribal absorption—means never owning yourself.

Previous: DL 192 • Next: DL 194 • Archive: 📧 Newsletter

🌱 Connected Concepts:

Part of the 📧 Newsletter archive documenting digital literacy and technology.