On Tech: Can tech break us out of our bubbles?

Plus, net neutrality, part II.

View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story February 26, 2021 Can tech break us out of our bubbles? Ard Su By Shira Ovide The internet has created an abundance of information and entertainment, and it's great. But we don't yet have perfect ways to find movies, books, music, information and activities that we might like — and especially those that push us out of our comfort zones. Cracking the best ways to discover new things in our online abundance is a technology challenge — but also a human one. It requires us to want to expose ourselves to ideas and entertainment that don't necessarily fit with our status quo. I hope we can. It's a way to make our lives fuller. Call me corny, but I still marvel at the wonder that the online world brings to our doorstep. We can drop in on world-class chess players on Twitch, discover products from Black-owned businesses, listen to people debate nuclear power on Clubhouse or play around with a Polaroid-like photo app. It's amazing. But we can experience it only if we know it exists and feel compelled to seek it out. Enter the computers. Online services like YouTube, Netflix and TikTok digest what you have already watched or its computer systems infer your tastes and then suggest more of the same. Websites like Facebook and Twitter expose you to what your friends like or to material that many other people already find engaging. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Those approaches have drawbacks. A big one is that they encourage us to stay inside our bubbles. We keep following and watching what we already know and like, either by our own inclination or by design of the internet sites. (Counterpoint: Some research has suggested that social media exposes people to broader viewpoints.) More ideas, more stuff to entertain us — and more potential ways to confirm what we already believe or to be steered by people who game the algorithm machines. This was a reality before the internet, but it's amplified now. What's the solution? I'm not sure. My colleague Kevin Roose told me last year that it's important to understand the ways that the internet crowds or computer systems might influence our choices. Rather than rely on computerized suggestions, Kevin said, he turns off the autoplay option in YouTube's video settings and makes his own music playlists on Spotify. I also appreciate ideas for combining computer-aided discovery with experts who might push you in a fresh direction. Spotify has song playlists created by experts. Apple editors surface news articles and suggest apps for people to try. I want many more experiments like these. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT News organizations including BuzzFeed News and The New York Times have tried projects to expose readers to opposing viewpoints. Facebook batted around a similar idea for recommending online forums that people might not ordinarily encounter, The Wall Street Journal reported last year. Finding stuff that is different from what we usually like also requires us to be open to ideas, culture and diversions that challenge and surprise us. I wonder if most people have the willingness or time to do that. In the sea of abundance online, I often fall back on the tried-and-true: wordof-mouth recommendations from people I know and from experts. When I'm looking for a new book, I ask bookworm friends or read professional reviewers. I don't think I trust the online crowds or algorithms, but I'm missing out. It feels as if the wonder is right at my fingertips, and I can't quite reach it. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT We want to hear from readers on this! How do you discover new books, music, information and activities? Tell us what you like about digital modes of finding new stuff, and what you think is missing. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com. YOUR LEAD Net neutrality, part II Some On Tech readers told us they were angry about Thursday's newsletter on the long road for proposed regulations that would force internet service providers to treat all online content on the same footing. I described the fight over rules to enshrine this principle of net neutrality as "pointless," and I get why people who have advocated net neutrality thought I was being glib. It was a fair criticism. What I was trying to express was exhaustion. The current rounds of fights over net neutrality regulation go back to at least 2008. The protracted efforts on this have me pessimistic about the possibility of any new rules or restraints that could tame the downsides of our digital world. My colleague Cecilia Kang and I also discussed net neutrality's relative importance compared with other tech policies, including effective rules for online expression and the influence of technology superpowers. A valid pushback from Evan Greer, a deputy director for the digital rights group Fight for the Future, is that if people are worried about Big Tech, then enshrining net neutrality in law is essential to restrain their power. I'll say one more thing about internet regulation. I am angry every day that so many Americans — particularly Black and Latino people and households in rural areas — cannot access or afford the internet. (Cecilia has a new article about an emergency federal subsidy for home internet access.) I am also angry that Americans (and Canadians!) pay more for worse internet and cellphone service than people do in most other rich countries. These are complex problems with no easy fix. But in my view, they are partly symptoms of America's failures to set effective telecommunications policies and hold internet and phone providers accountable for their promises over many decades. And those companies deserve a large measure of blame for obfuscating the problems and fighting tooth and nail over any regulation. If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times. Your support makes our work possible. Before we go … Being corny again: I make fun of internet companies for just stealing others' ideas or making trivial things. But my colleagues Kate Conger and Taylor Lorenz wrote about genuinely fresh concepts from Twitter and a photo app start-up called Dispo. Militaries were the original customers for Silicon Valley: Some big American tech companies have recently shied away from working with the U.S. military, partly because of complaints from employees. My colleague Cade Metz reported on smaller companies that are courting business from government agencies and the Pentagon with technology, like a self-piloting drone. The Roombas are acting "drunk": A software update for some models of the robotic vacuum cleaners made them do weird things, like repeatedly bang into walls. Hugs to this Dwayne Reed, a teacher, author and rapper in Chicago, made a music video to encourage kids to wear face masks. It is extremely catchy. (Thanks to my colleague Natasha Singer for sharing this.) We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com. If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times. To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

On Tech: The long, painful path of net neutrality

Plus, Facebook's false choice.

View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story February 25, 2021 The long, painful path of net neutrality Dev Valladares By Shira Ovide People may scream at me for saying this, but net neutrality is one of America's longest and now most pointless fights over technology. The principle is sound: Companies like Comcast and AT&T that sell us home internet service shouldn't push some online data to computers and TV sets faster than others. (The internet companies say that it's counterproductive for the government to impose this.) So since the Napster era, we've been stuck in an endless loop of arguments, laws and repealed laws. California this week was cleared to enforce its own net neutrality regulation, which (of course) had been challenged in court. This is now a distraction for our elected leaders and corporations when there are more pressing issues. I talked to my colleague Cecilia Kang about the origins of the war over net neutrality (barbershop music!) and what's at stake. Shira: How long have we been fighting about net neutrality? Cecilia: Forever. It's probably the oldest tech policy issue I can remember, and I've been doing this a long time. The idea of net neutrality goes back earlier, but it really kicked off in 2008. A news article discussed a man whose Comcast internet service seemed to be blocking him from barbershop quartet music on peer-to-peer file sharing. The Federal Communications Commission sanctioned Comcast. That started a fight over federal rules and a war between telecommunications providers and tech firms. Why does the fight matter to us? Many Americans have only one or possibly two options for home internet providers. Those companies can in theory decide whether we can view Netflix or YouTube crystal clear or if we see the pinwheel of death as those sites stutter. You can see the appeal of rules that make sure internet providers don't stall web traffic unless it's from their preferred business partners or their own streaming services. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT However, the debate feels much less urgent now that we're talking about threats of online disinformation about vaccine deployment and elections. The net neutrality debate focused on internet service providers as powerful gatekeepers of internet information. That term now seems better applied to Facebook, Google and Amazon. When Google has its own undersea internet cables, isn't the reality that some internet services reach us faster no matter what the law says? Yes, but the internet providers like Spectrum, Verizon and Comcast that have pipes directly into homes is what regulators care most about. They spook Silicon Valley, too, because every online company needs those internet providers to get into American homes. What happens next? Probably more states will follow California in pressing for their own net neutrality rules, or the F.C.C. will push national rules that pre-empt the states. Groups that want net neutrality laws will be happy with either. Telecom companies prefer a national law or none at all. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Internet providers, public interest groups, some tech companies and a bunch of our elected leaders have been screaming holy war about an issue for 13 years without a resolution. Can they reach a middle ground and we'll all move on? There probably isn't much of a middle ground. There are either net neutrality rules or there aren't. And the internet service providers see net neutrality as a slippery slope that leads to broader regulation of high-speed internet services or government-imposed limits on prices they can charge. They will fight any regulation. And that's true, too, of the lobbyists who are hired to argue against anything. Cecilia, that's the absolute worst. Yeah, totally cynical. Welcome to Washington! If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Facebook's false choice Facebook on Thursday introduced a campaign to convince the public that how it makes money is good for us. But it's not telling the whole story. To remind you: Facebook compiles information on what we do on its apps, all over the web and in the real world. It uses that data to help Nike or the local coffee shop pitch ads to people who are likely potential customers. Google operates similarly, and lots of companies try to do versions of this. These targeted advertisements, which are based on our behavior or computer-aided inferences about what we'll like, benefit both us and businesses. We probably get cheaper picture-framing services or hotel rooms because Facebook gives businesses a relatively affordable way to pinpoint the most receptive customers. But Facebook is also offering a false choice between old and wasteful types of advertising and the current mode of recording every hamburger you've eaten since 2001 to pinpoint ads. No no no no no. Facebook is effectively saying that the only alternative to its invasive, data-hogging status quo is the pre-internet system in which magazines, news organizations and television networks more or less guessed at the right audience for a Nike commercial. But the way that Facebook and Google have designed their advertising systems is not the only alternative to the clunky old ways. Here are some questions that we and policymakers need to ask Facebook and other companies that sell ads: What if the companies collected less data about us? Does Facebook really need to know every time we visit Starbucks down to the millisecond? What is an effective middle ground? We would benefit from fewer Facebook publicity campaigns, and more informed debate about how advertising can best serve all of us. If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times. Your support makes our work possible. Before we go … The stakes of online life, encapsulated in one country: Facebook banned Myanmar's military from its services after it led a coup. The decision, my colleagues wrote, "left little question that the company was taking the side of a pro-democracy movement." Hang out for discussions about nuclear power and Korean karaoke contests: The Times technology columnist Kevin Roose explained the appeal of Clubhouse, the buzzy audio chat room app, but also said that it is speed-running through the typical internet life cycle from joy to horror. Companies can't quit the plus sign: My colleague Tiffany Hsu tells us why every video streaming service is named "[something]+" "It's not that 'plus' is the best name," one source told Tiffany. "It's the one that survives, because everything else is eviscerated." Related: This meme. Hugs to this A look at the Slippery Stairs world championship from 2019. Because, why not. We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com. If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times. To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018