Vox.com | Explain the news

https://www.vox.com

  • Quels #impôts les #milliardaires paient-ils ?
    (publié juin 2023)

    A l’aide de données administratives inédites, reliant les déclarations de revenus des particuliers aux #déclarations_fiscales des entreprises en #France en 2016, les auteurs mesurent les #taux_d’imposition directe effectifs des ménages situés au sommet de la distribution des revenus. Cette nouvelle mesure, distincte du traditionnel revenu fiscal de référence en ce qu’elle intègre notamment les revenus non distribués des sociétés détenues par ces ménages, les amène à interroger la réalité de la progressivité de l’impôt.


    Enseignements clés

    - Le taux d’imposition effectif des ménages français apparaît en 2016 progressif jusqu’à des niveaux élevés de revenu. Il atteint 46 % pour les foyers appartenant aux 0,1 % les plus riches.
    - Le taux d’imposition effectif devient régressif au sommet de la distribution, passant de 46 % pour les 0,1 % les plus riches, à 26 % pour les 0,0002 % les plus riches.
    – Pour les « milliardaires », l’impôt sur le revenu ou l’ISF ne représentent qu’une fraction négligeable de leurs revenus globaux, alors que l’impôt sur les sociétés est le principal impôt acquitté.
    - Le taux plus faible d’imposition des plus hauts revenus s’explique par le fait que l’imposition des bénéfices des sociétés est plus faible que l’imposition des revenus personnels.

    https://www.ipp.eu/publication/16253

    #riches #fisc #fiscalité

    • The billionaire’s guide to doing taxes

      Do you want to pay less taxes? Great. Step one, be a rich person. Then, buy a yacht. Or a sports team. Give a lot to charity. Lose some money in the stock market. Above all, make sure most of your money exists in the form of assets, not cash — stocks, real estate, a Dutch master painting, fine jewelry, or whatever else strikes your fancy.

      They say that money is a universal language, but it speaks at different volumes. When you have a fathomless bounty of wealth, money doesn’t quite register as an expense until you add a lot of zeros to the end — so spending a lot to save a lot is a no brainer. It’s why the mega-rich often hire expensive tax lawyers, wealth managers, or even set up a whole office dedicated to tax strategy. “It’s not just preparing the return,” says Paul Wieseneck, a tax accountant and director of the Fuoco Group. “There’s so much more involved in planning, in accumulating, offsetting, and trying to mitigate the taxes as best as possible.”

      For the rich, taxes aren’t a springtime affair with a quick visit to H&R Block, but a year-round endeavor.

      How much tax a wealthy person owes in a given year is a complex tapestry threaded with exemptions, deductions, credits, and obscure loopholes you’ve never heard of. The ideal is to owe zilch. If that sounds impossible to achieve, just look at the leaked tax returns of the wealthiest Americans that nonprofit news site ProPublica analyzed in 2021: Over several years, billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg, among others, paid no federal income taxes at all.

      How do they do it? Here are some basic rules they live by.
      Don’t take a paycheck

      If your income is earned through wages paid to you by an employer, chances are your taxes are on the simpler side of the spectrum. Not as simple as it is for wage earners in other countries, where the government simply tells you how much you owe, but getting a paycheck from your boss means your taxes are automatically withheld each pay period. Filing your tax return might be as easy as filling out one form.

      You can pick and choose which deductions to take (like for student loan interest, or for having a home office), but the vast majority of households take the simpler standard deduction, which this year erases $14,600 from your tax bill. For tax year 2024, you’ll pay a 37 percent tax on any income you rake in over $609,350. That sounds like it would add up to a sizable amount for multimillionaires and billionaires — unless that income is just a minuscule share of their increasing wealth.

      Jeff Bezos, when he was still Amazon CEO, had a base salary of around $80,000 a year. Elon Musk doesn’t take a salary at all at Tesla. Apple CEO Tim Cook does get a $3 million salary, but it’s a small slice of the $63 million he received overall last year. Most wealthy entrepreneurs are paid in bountiful stock rewards; Musk is currently fighting to keep his record-breaking Tesla pay package, made up of a bunch of stock options and now valued at almost $56 billion. ProPublica found that, because their income fell below the threshold, at least 18 billionaires got a Covid-19 stimulus check.

      Paul Kiel, a ProPublica reporter who was an integral part of the newsroom’s billionaire tax return stories, says the income versus wealth divide was crucial in helping the public understand how differently the wealthy operate. “If you can avoid income as it’s defined in our system, and still get richer, that’s the best route,” he tells Vox.

      Stocks aren’t taxed until they’re sold — and even then, what’s taxed is the profit on the sale, called a capital gains tax. Billionaires (usually) don’t sell valuable stock. So how do they afford the daily expenses of life, whether it’s a new pleasure boat or a social media company? They borrow against their stock. This revolving door of credit allows them to buy what they want without incurring a capital gains tax. Though the “buy, borrow, die” strategy isn’t quite as sweet right now because interest rates are high, a Wall Street Journal piece from 2021 notes that those with $100 million or more could get interest rates as low as 0.87 percent at Merrill Lynch. The taxable value of a stock also resets when it’s passed on to an heir, so that if a wealthy scion chooses to sell their inherited stock, they’d only pay a tax on the increase in value since the original owner’s death.
      Plan on losing money

      If you do, regrettably, have to sell assets, fret not: just lose a lot of money, too, and pile on the offsets. “We do what’s called tax-loss harvesting,” says Wieseneck, using a simple example to illustrate. Say someone owns Pepsi stock, and it tanks. They sell at a loss, but then buy about the same amount of Coca Cola stock. The Pepsi loss can erase some (or even all, if you play your cards right) of the taxes owed on the gains made on Coca Cola stock.

      “During the year we try to accumulate losses,” says Wieseneck. “At the end of the year, if I know you have a capital gain on a sale of a property or a house or another investment, I’ll accumulate some losses for you that can offset [it].” Capital losses don’t also have to be applied in the same year — if you know you’ll be selling more assets next year, you can bank them for later.

      It’s illegal to quickly sell and then buy the same stock again — a practice called a “wash sale” — just to save on taxes, but the key word is “same.” Public companies often offer different classes of stock that essentially trade the same, and it’s not hard to trade similar-enough stocks back and forth. Exchange-traded funds (ETFs), for example, are like buckets containing a mix of stocks that can themselves be traded like a stock. A few different ETFs might perform roughly the same on the stock market; a person could sell one ETF and quickly buy another while avoiding the “do not sell and buy the same stock within 30 days” rule.
      Play tax rate arbitrage

      Another tool in the tax shrinking arsenal: leveraging the differences in tax rates, which vary based on the type of asset and how long someone owned it. Long-term gains — assets held for longer than a year — from the sale of stocks and bonds are taxed at rates as low as zero percent and as high as 25 percent. Short-term gains, meanwhile, can face a tax as high as 37 percent. Collectibles, which include art, antiques, cards, comic books, and more, have a max rate of 28 percent.

      The basic strategy here is to always get the lowest tax rate possible for your gains. A favorite tactic of billionaire investor Jeff Yass, according to reporting from ProPublica, is to place bets both for and against large companies, trying to amass a bunch of short-term losses on one end and long-term gains, which already enjoy a lower tax rate, on the other.

      Another kind of magic trick is to place high-tax income into lower-tax or no-tax wrappers, which can include things like tax-advantaged retirement accounts. One example is what’s called the private placement life insurance policy, a niche product that only the very wealthiest of the wealthy use. It can cost millions of dollars to set up, so it’s not worth it unless you’re rich, but the premiums a policyholder pays into the policy can be invested in high-growth investment options, such as hedge funds. The money you’d get back if you decide to cancel the policy isn’t taxed, but it’s not even necessary to take the money out. You can borrow money from the policy at low interest rates, and its benefits pass on tax-free to beneficiaries upon the original holder’s death. It’s insurance, says Michael Kosnitzky, co-chair of the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman’s Private Client & Family Office practice group, “but it also holds investment assets and, like any permanent insurance policy, the cash surrender value grows tax free.”

      A recent report from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, laid out how big the scheme had gotten, currently sheltering at least $40 billion. The report found that the average net worth of people with such life insurance policies was over $100 million.
      Business or pleasure?

      When you’re very rich, it’s important to treat everything as a business expense. Private jets are expensive luxuries, but the cost can be fully tax deductible if the plane is mostly being used for business — and what counts as “mostly business” isn’t clear cut. Maybe you take a trip on your jet partly to take a business meeting, but also to spend a few relaxing days in a beautiful getaway spot. Private jet owners often set up LLCs and rent out their planes when they’re not personally using them to take advantage of the tax deduction, reported ProPublica.

      In fact, many expensive hobbies of the ultra-rich coincidentally turn into business expenses — yachts, racehorses, golf courses, and more. They’re often run very professionally, says Kiel, “but never quite seem to make a profit.”

      “Generally you’re not supposed to write stuff off that’s a hobby,” he continues. “But the wealthier you are, the more your hobbies appear to be businesses or are operated like businesses.”

      Despite the ubiquity of this practice, there’s risk to it, especially as the IRS ramps up audits of tax write-offs for private jets. If the wealthy are going to buy exorbitantly expensive yachts and claim it’s being used for a business, says Kosnitzky, “you’d better be on very solid ground.”
      Philanthropy pays

      Charity is a time-worn way the ultra-rich reduce their taxes — and it has the added bonus of putting a nice luster on their reputation. Many charitable organizations set up by billionaires are tax-exempt, and charitable donations are tax deductible. You can completely control when to make a donation, and of what size, depending on how much taxable income you have in a given year; it’s a nimble method of offsetting taxes.

      But the worthiness of charitable deductions can be questionable, because they’re “very, very loosely regulated,” says Kiel. The donations themselves can range from buying mosquito nets to prevent malaria to “paying for your kid’s private school.” Recall, for example, that former President Donald Trump once used money from his foundation to buy a painting of himself. Often, the wealthy can pour money into foundations and funds with philanthropic aims without actually distributing that money to anyone. One popular charitable medium today is called a donor-advised fund. Rich people put their money into these funds, and “advisers” who manage the account eventually give away the money — eventually being the key word. Even if the money hasn’t gone to a good cause yet, donors can take the tax deduction right away.

      In other cases, what raises eyebrows is whether an ostensibly charitable organization actually serves a public good. These charities get tax-exempt status because they’re supposed to have a “pro-social” purpose, says Daniel Reck, an economics professor at the University of Maryland who recently co-authored a paper analyzing tax evasion among the ultra-rich. Some billionaires claim their foundations qualify because they’re opening up a historical mansion or private art collection to the public. In fact, there are many examples of tax-exempt organizations not holding up their end of the bargain. As ProPublica reported, the historic landmark Carolands Chateau enjoys tax benefits but is open to the public just two hours per week. A private art gallery established by the late billionaire Sheldon Solow only recently became open to visitors, despite some of the art being held in a tax-exempt foundation.

      Also crucial to utilizing charity as a tax avoidance strategy is pumping up the value of your generosity. “You donate some fancy piece of fine art to a museum, you get an assessment for the art, it’s much more than you could actually ever sell it for,” explains Reck. “You get a big tax write-off.” It’s not just fine art, either — one popular form of overvaluation (until Congress passed a bill putting an end to it last year) involved inflating the value of land. Called a “syndicated conservation easement,” it took advantage of an incentive for environmental conservation, in which landowners who agree not to develop their land would get a tax break proportional to the fair market value of the land. “The game is that people just massively, ludicrously inflate these fair market values,” says Reck. In the syndicated version of this tax break, a group of investors buys land, gets an overvalued assessment on it, and shares the tax write-off between themselves. “Now there are a bunch of court cases about it,” Reck says.
      The gray area and the illegal stuff

      Some of the above tactics occupy an ambiguous, blurry zone of legality — it might be okay or not on a case-by-case basis. Some wealthy people may be alright with the risk, but Kosnitzky notes that it isn’t wise to play the “audit lottery” — there’s also reputational risk to consider. For those determined to take an “aggressive” tax position, a lot of documentation and even having their lawyer prepare a memo defending their tax strategy may be necessary. They might still end up paying a penalty and owing taxes, but exactly how much is up for negotiation.

      The paper Reck co-authored found that sophisticated tax evasion methods used by the very wealthy, including evasion through pass-through businesses or offshore accounts, often goes undetected by random audits. This suggests that current estimates of the “tax gap,” or the difference between taxes paid to the IRS and the amount it’s actually owed, is very likely an undercount.

      The difference between avoidance (legal) and evasion (illegal) is hard to untangle at times because wealthy people will dispute their audit, deploying brilliant tax lawyers to argue that the government is mistaken. These battles can take years to settle. It’s not just that the IRS needs a bigger budget to do all the audits it wants to — it did get extra funding in the Inflation Reduction Act — but that auditing a wealthy taxpayer is costlier, and much more time-consuming, than auditing a poor one. The structures of the well-off’s businesses are often extremely complex, too, which also makes auditing them more expensive.

      Reck noted that rich people dispute a greater share of the tax that the IRS says they should pay after an audit. In the middle of the income distribution, about 10 percent of the auditor’s recommended adjustment is disputed, says Reck. Among people with the highest income, however, the disputed share exceeds 50 percent. “That suggests that the taxpayer and their advisers, at least, believe that they’re either in some gray area or were allowed to do what they did.”

      “We’ve talked to a lot of former IRS agents, and they would often hear the line that for wealthy taxpayers, their tax return is like an opening offer,” says Kiel.

      How the very rich lose money, overvalue art, buy very expensive life insurance, and somehow profit.

      https://www.vox.com/money/2024/3/13/24086102/billionaires-wealthy-tax-avoidance-loopholes
      #philantropie

      via @freakonometrics

  • The dark — and often misunderstood — nuclear history behind Oppenheimer | Alex Wellerstein
    https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/7/24/23800777/oppenheimer-christopher-nolan-atomic-bomb-true-story-los-alamos-manhattan-proje

    There’s a whole line of scholarship now that is not new — it’s 20 to 30 years old, or older — which gets into the fact that the standard narrative that most people have about the use of the atomic bombs and World War II is wrong.

    We can call that the decision-to-use-the-bomb narrative, like just the idea that Harry Truman very carefully weighed whether to use the bomb or not. It was a question of, “Do you bomb? Or do you invade?” And so with a heavy heart, he chose to bomb and that was the lesser of two evils. That is just 100 percent not what happened at the time.

    It’s much less rationalized and thought out. They were planning to bomb and invade. And they didn’t know what the future would be. And Truman played very little role in all of this. This isn’t news to any scholars, but it hasn’t penetrated popular culture. And it’s not in this film at all.

    [...] So a lot of the discussions we have about the decision to use the atomic bomb — in elementary schools and high schools and even in college — it’s really a question of, if you have two bad options in front of you, are you allowed to take one of them? Are you forced to take one? So it’s about, what are the conditions in which you were allowed to destroy an entire city?

    And when we construct it that way, we are actually repeating a bad version of history that was invented by people trying to justify the use of the atomic bomb. Because if you get into the situation where you’re saying, is it better to use the atomic bomb or is it better to have this horrible, terrible invasion that will kill some giant number of people, it’s really hard to conclude that the atomic bomb wasn’t justified.

    That wasn’t how it was seen in 1945. One of the questions that often comes up is, did they have to use two bombs? Why #Nagasaki, so soon after #Hiroshima? There’s a whole way to justify that in this rational language: you say, the first bomb was to prove we had one; the second was to prove that we had more than one. And we had to do it because the Japanese didn’t respond to Hiroshima. So it was necessary. And that’s why they chose to do it. That’s all false.

    It’s false in the sense that there was no strategic choice about Nagasaki. Truman didn’t even know Nagasaki was going to happen. The [military] people on the island Tinian, who were in charge of dropping the bombs, had an order that they could drop the bombs as soon as they were ready to use, and they happened to have two bombs ready at about the same time. They got a weather forecast that said the planned date for the second bombing was going to have bad weather. So they moved it up a day to accommodate the weather. It had nothing to do with high-level strategy.

    The Japanese were, at this time, still trying to figure out what had happened at Hiroshima. They hadn’t actually concluded or even deliberated about it in any formal way. It wasn’t part of some grand scheme. It complicates the discussion quite a bit when you know those details.

    [...] There’s a colleague of mine at Princeton named Michael Gordin, and he has a book called Five Days in August: How World War II Became a Nuclear War, which is all about how people thought about the atomic bomb in-between Hiroshima and the surrender of Japan. At that point, it’s not clear that the bomb has actually ended the war. And if that is the case, then your feelings on, “Well, is it some world-changing weapon or is it just a really efficient way of doing what they could already do?” [A single night of incendiary bombing killed more than 100,000 people in Tokyo on March 9, 1945.]

    So those guys on the island who decided to go ahead with the Nagasaki mission on their own choice, they see it as just another weapon. Whereas there are other people, including some of the politicians, who do not see it that way. They see it as this really core political strategic device. Once the war ends, the bomb as a special political thing, that viewpoint wins out. Looking at how people’s attitudes change, you can get a lot out of that.

    • Turns out Oppenheimer’s boss lied, repeatedly, about radiation poisoning
      https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/oppenheimer-manhattan-project-radiation-atomic-bomb-declassified.html

      On Nov. 27 [1945], months after the memo about the biological effects of the atomic explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Stafford Warren, the project’s chief medical officer, wrote Groves with even more definitive proof. Of the roughly 4,000 patients admitted to hospitals in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he wrote, “1300 or 33% showed effects of radiation and, of this number, approximately one-half died.”

      Nonetheless, three days later, in testimony before the Senate Special Committee on Atomic Energy, Groves was asked if there was any “radioactive residue” at the two bombed Japanese cities. Groves replied, “There is none. That is a very positive ‘none.’

      [...] in a comment that sealed his reputation among his critics, Groves said that irradiated victims who died not right away, but after some time, would do so “without undue suffering. In fact,” he said, “they say it is a very pleasant way to die.

      Groves discounted, downplayed, then denied the reports about radiation sickness because, like many at the time, he thought that nuclear weapons would be the centerpiece of U.S. defense policy (as indeed they were for the next few decades) and that the American public would rebel against them if they were seen as something like poison gas—and thus beyond a moral threshold.

  • What the Francesca Gino, a Harvard dishonesty researcher, controversy reveals about peer review - Vox
    https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/6/29/23777337/harvard-dishonesty-research-fraud-francesca-gino-dan-ariely

    Francesca Gino is a Harvard Business School professor who studies, among other things, dishonesty. How often do people lie and cheat when they think they can get away with it? How can people be prompted to lie or cheat less often?

    Those are some great questions. But it’s been a rough few years for the field of dishonesty studies because it has turned out that several of the researchers were, well, making up their data. The result is a fascinating insight into dishonesty, if not the one that the authors intended.

  • 5 people have been infected with malaria in Florida and Texas. What’s going on? - Vox
    https://www.vox.com/science/2023/6/23/23771154/malaria-transmission-florida-texas-mosquitoes-risk-prevention-anopheles

    Overall, the environment of the US is growing more conducive to growing populations of mosquitoes, which may raise the risk of malaria transmission. Climate change is “definitely playing a role in vector-borne disease” broadly throughout the United States, said Estelle Martin, an entomologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville who researches mosquito-borne diseases. Over the last two decades, increasing temperatures and extreme weather have favored mosquito replication — and they also favor the replication of malaria parasites. But it’s not clear exactly what role that dynamic is playing in these three cases.

    #paludisme #etats-unis

  • The Colorado River waters our crops. What if it dries up? - Vox
    https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23648116/colorado-river-lake-mead-agriculture-leafy-greens

    More than 100 years ago, the US government encouraged Americans to populate rural areas like this, build infrastructure, and farm more land, according to Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University. That’s when engineers started building canals to take water from the Colorado River. At the time, the US policy was “to try to get every acre of land under the plow,” Porter said.

    […]

    In determining the share each basin would get, water officials ignored inconvenient #science and massively overestimated the river’s average flow. Western water users each got a piece of the river, but — together with water later allocated to Mexico through a treaty — those pieces turned out to be more than what it can offer in a typical year. (The 1922 decision also failed to spell out what shares would be given to the 30 or so tribal nations in the basin.)

  • Qu’est-ce qu’un #nurdle ?
    https://www.nurdlehunt.org.uk/euronurdlehunt-fr.html

    Les nurdles (granulés plastique) sont des pastilles en #plastique de la taille d’une lentille (2-3 mm). Ils sont utilisées par l’industrie pour fabriquer de nombreux produits en plastique. Le déversement accidentel peut conduire à leur arrivée dans l’environnement, et beaucoup finissent par se retrouver sur les plages ...

    What are nurdles? The petrochemical product is infiltrating the environment. - Vox
    https://www.vox.com/recode/23056251/nurdles-plastic-pollution-ocean-microplastics

    As the world moves toward renewable energy and demand for fossil fuels is expected to peak in the near future, the oil and gas industry is increasingly shifting its business focus to plastic production. Plastic production is expected to triple by 2050 thanks to a fracking boom in the United States that makes natural gas extremely cheap to produce. That will lead to a rise in nurdle production. The question on researchers’ minds is where these beads will end up.

  • Roe v. Wade est basé sur le concept de « right to privacy », droit que la Cour suprême considérait comme un droit constitutionnel. Ce thread décrit comment le projet de révocation de Roe v. Wade se base sur la révocation, plus large, de la constitutionnalité du « right du Privacy ». Et ce faisant, n’est qu’une première étape vers encore plus d’attaques contre les droits.
    https://twitter.com/a_h_reaume/status/1521316453944758273

    Roe v. Wade is based on the ’right to privacy.’ If the majority opinion by SCOTUS suggests that the constitution does not protect the right to privacy... that affects a WHOLE lot of other decisions. Buckle up - this is the beginning of a lot of potential ugliness.
    A thread.

    Lire le thread, c’est très intéressant, on y aborde notamment la notion de « originalist », pour décrire les juges qui adoptent une lecture littérale de la Constitution.

    • Originalism, explained - Vox
      https://www.vox.com/21497317/originalism-amy-coney-barrett-constitution-supreme-court

      Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings begin on Monday, and it’s a safe bet that we’ll hear one word over and over again over the next few days: “originalism.” Barrett is a self-proclaimed originalist, embracing a theory of the Constitution that is also shared by at least two other sitting justices: Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

      Originalism, in Barrett’s words, is the belief that “constitutional text means what it did at the time it was ratified and that this original public meaning is authoritative.” Judges, originalists maintain, should be bound by the words of the Constitution, and the meaning of those words should be determined solely based on how they were understood when they were added to the Constitution.

  • The origins of ‘cancel’

    In the ’80s, a bad date inspired the musician Nile Rodgers to write a song. The track, “Your Love Is Canceled,” played on the idea of “canceling” a person for objectionable behavior, as Clyde McGrady writes in The Washington Post.

    The phrase stuck around: Rappers and reality TV stars used it, and its popularity soared once Black users on Twitter began saying it. On social media at the time, canceling someone or something “was more like changing the channel — and telling your friends and followers about it — than demanding that the TV execs take the program off the air,” McGrady writes. That has changed in recent years.
    https://www.thefader.com/2015/12/03/on-fleek-peaches-monroee-meechie-viral-vines

    Like a lot of Black slang, the term was appropriated by white people and has since deviated from its more innocuous origins. It became heavily politicized, applied to everything from public figures accused of sexual assault to the gender of Potato Head toys. It has followed a similar trajectory to the term “woke,” which Black activists popularized. That term has now evolved into a “single-word summation of leftist political ideology,” as Vox reports.
    https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/stay-woke-wokeness-history-origin-evolution-controversy

    Though these are some of the latest terms lifted from Black culture, they won’t be the last. “One of the biggest exports of American culture,” a linguistics professor told The Post, “is African-American language.”

    #Langage #Internet #Culture_numérique #Africains-américains

  • UK and South Africa Covid-19 mutations may threaten vaccine efficacy - Vox
    https://www.vox.com/22213033/covid-19-mutation-variant-vaccine-uk-south-africa

    Why the new Covid-19 variants are different — and more worrisome — when it comes to the vaccines
    Scientists have warned that it was always possible the coronavirus could evolve to evade the Covid-19 vaccines that have been approved so far. The arrival of the UK and South Africa variants may be a step in that direction, increasing the odds of the vaccines becoming less effective over time.

    encore un argument s’il en fallait, pour une stratégie de suppression

  • Perché l’università delle piattaforme è la fine dell’università

    Un gruppo di docenti di alcune università italiane ha scritto una lettera aperta sulle conseguenze dell’uso di piattaforme digitali proprietarie nella didattica a distanza. Auspichiamo che si apra al più presto una discussione sul futuro dell’educazione e che gli investimenti di cui si discute in queste settimane vengano utilizzati per la creazione di un’infrastruttura digitale pubblica per scuole e università.

    Care colleghe e cari colleghi, care studentesse e cari studenti,

    come certamente sapete, le scuole e le università italiane, da quando è iniziata l’emergenza COVID, per ragioni inizialmente comprensibili, si sono affidate per la gestione della didattica a distanza (esami inclusi) a piattaforme e strumenti proprietari, appartenenti, perlopiù, alla galassia cosiddetta “GAFAM” (Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft e Amazon: https://gafam.info). Esistono poche eccezioni, come il Politecnico di Torino, che ha adottato soluzioni non-proprietarie (https://www.coronavirus.polito.it/didattica_online/supporto_tecnico_alla_didattica_online/linee_guida_e_vademecum_tecnici) e autoprodotte. Tuttavia, il 16 luglio 2020 la Corte di Giustizia Europea ha emanato una sentenza (https://www.garanteprivacy.it/documents/10160/0/FAQ+dell%27EDPB+sulla+sentenza+della+Corte+di+giustizia+dell%27Unione+europea+nella+causa+C-311_18.pdf/d2f928b2-ab57-ae7c-8f17-390664610d2c?version=3.0) molto importante, dove, in sintesi, si afferma che le imprese statunitensi non garantiscono la privacy degli utenti secondo il regolamento europeo sulla protezioni dei dati, conosciuto come #GDPR (#General_Data_Protection_Regulation: https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr). Dunque allo stato tutti i trasferimenti di dati da UE a Stati Uniti devono essere considerati non conformi alla direttiva europea e perciò illegittimi.

    Sul tema è in corso un dibattito a livello comunitario e il Garante Europeo ha esplicitamente invitato “istituzioni, uffici, agenzie e organi dell’Unione europea a evitare trasferimenti di dati personali verso gli Stati Uniti per nuove operazioni di trattamento o in caso di nuovi contratti con fornitori di servizi” (https://www.key4biz.it/il-garante-privacy-europeo-non-usare-i-cloud-provider-usa-conformarsi-alla-sentenza-schrems-ii/328472). Mentre il garante irlandese ha direttamente vietato (https://www.politico.eu/article/facebook-privacy-data-us) i trasferimenti dei dati degli utenti Facebook verso gli Stati Uniti. Alcuni studi (http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/04/emergency-remote-teaching-a-study-of-copyright-and-data-p) infine sottolineano come la maggioranza della piattaforme commerciali usate durante la “didattica emergenziale” (in primis G-Suite: https://www.agendadigitale.eu/scuola-digitale/liberiamo-la-scuola-dai-servizi-cloud-usa-lettera-aperta-ai-presidi) pongano seri problemi legali e documentano una “sistematica violazione dei principi di trasparenza.”

    In questa difficile situazione, varie organizzazioni, tra cui (come diremo sotto) alcuni docenti universitari, stanno cercando di sensibilizzare scuole e università italiane ad adeguarsi alla sentenza, nell’interesse non solo di docenti e studenti, che hanno il diritto di studiare, insegnare e discutere senza essere sorvegliati (https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/4/21241062/schools-cheating-proctorio-artificial-intelligence), profilati e schedati, ma delle istituzioni stesse. I rischi legati a una didattica appaltata a multinazionali che fanno dei nostri dati ciò che vogliono non sono, infatti, solo economici e culturali, ma anche legali: chiunque, in questa situazione, potrebbe sporgere reclamo al garante della privacy a danno dell’istituzione in cui ci troviamo a lavorare.

    La questione va però al di là del diritto alla privatezza nostra e dei nostri studenti. Nella rinnovata emergenza COVID sappiamo che vi sono enormi interessi economici (https://www.roars.it/online/dematerializzazioni-algoritmi-e-profitti) in ballo e che le piattaforme digitali, che in questi mesi hanno moltiplicato i loro fatturati (si veda lo studio (https://www.mbres.it/sites/default/files/resources/rs_WebSoft2020_presentazione.pdf) pubblicato a ottobre da Mediobanca), hanno la forza e il potere per plasmare il futuro dell’educazione in tutto il mondo. Un esempio è quello che sta accadendo nella scuola con il progetto nazionale “#Smart_Class” (https://www.istruzione.it/pon), finanziato con fondi UE dal Ministero dell’Istruzione. Si tratta di un pacchetto preconfezionato di “didattica integrata” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPPhUL8MIPs&feature=youtu.be

    ) dove i contenuti (di tutte le materie) li mette Pearson, il software Google e l’hardware è Acer-Chrome Book. (Per inciso, Pearson è il secondo editore al mondo (https://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/Global502019.pdf), con un fatturato di oltre 4 miliardi e mezzo di euro nel 2018.) E per le scuole che aderiscono non è possibile acquistare altri prodotti…

    Infine, sebbene possa apparirci fantascienza, oltre a stabilizzare la teledidattica proprietaria (https://www.roars.it/online/teledidattica-proprietaria-e-privata-o-libera-e-pubblica) come “offerta”, si parla già (https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/06/08/artificial-intelligence-in-education-transformation) di intelligenze artificiali che “affiancheranno” i docenti nel loro lavoro.

    Per tutte queste ragioni un gruppo di docenti di varie università italiane ha deciso di reagire.

    La loro e nostra iniziativa non è al momento finalizzata a presentare un reclamo immediato al garante, ma ad evitarlo, permettendo a docenti e studenti di creare spazi di discussione e indurre a rettificare scelte che coinvolgono la loro libertà d’insegnamento e il loro diritto allo studio. Solo se la risposta istituzionale sarà insufficiente o assente, ricorreremo, come extrema ratio, al reclamo al garante della privacy. In tal caso il primo passo sarà sfruttare la “falla” aperta dalla sentenza della corte UE per spingere il garante italiano a intervenire (invero lo aveva già fatto #Antonello_Soro (https://www.key4biz.it/soro-al-parlamento-infrastruttura-cloud-pubblica-non-piu-eludibile-per-lindipendenza-dai-poteri-privati/311412), ma è rimasto inascoltato). Lo scopo di queste azioni non è certamente quello di “bloccare” le piattaforme che erogano la didattica a distanza e chi le usa, ma spingere il governo a investire finalmente nella creazione di un’infrastruttura pubblica e basata su software libero (https://www.agendadigitale.eu/sicurezza/leuropa-post-privacy-shield-e-lopen-source-la-via-per-uscire-dal-colo) per la comunicazione scientifica e didattica. Esistono vari modelli (vedi quello proposto qui: https://infolet.it/files/2020/11/FACSIMILE-MODULO-DOCENTI-PRIVACY_pdf.pdf) ai quali ispirarsi, per esempio in Francia (http://apps.education.fr), ma anche in Spagna (https://cedec.intef.es/proyecto-edia), ecc. e la stessa UNESCO nel 2019 ha approvato una Raccomandazione (https://en.unesco.org/news/new-unesco-recommendation-will-promote-access-educational-resources-all) per l’uso di risorse e strumenti aperti in ambito educativo.

    Come dicevamo sopra, prima di arrivare al garante nazionale è necessario una tappa preliminare. Ciascuno deve scrivere al responsabile del trattamento dati richiedendo alcune informazioni (qui il fac-simile di modulo per docenti che abbiamo preparato: https://infolet.it/files/2020/11/FACSIMILE-MODULO-DOCENTI-PRIVACY_pdf.pdf). Se non si riceverà risposta entro trenta giorni, o se la risposta è considerata insoddisfacente, si potrà procedere col reclamo al garante nazionale. A quel punto, il discorso cambierà, perché il reclamo al garante potrà essere fatto non solo da singoli, ma da gruppi o associazioni. È importante sottolineare che, anche in questo evitabile scenario, la domanda al responsabile del trattamento dati non può essere assolutamente interpretata come una “protesta” contro il proprio ateneo, ma come un tentativo di renderlo, per tutti e tutte, un ambiente di lavoro e di studi migliore, adeguandosi alle norme europee.

    https://infolet.it/2020/11/10/perche-luniversita-delle-piattaforme-e-la-fine-delluniversita

    #université #enseignement_à_distance #gafa #vie_privée #protection_des_données #business #GAFAM #cour_de_justice_européenne #CJUE #enseignement #ESR #distanciel

    ping @etraces

    • Why basing universities on digital platforms will lead to their demise
      (All links removed. They can be found in the original post – English Translation by Desmond Schmidt)

      A group of professors from Italian universities have written an open letter on the consequences of using proprietary digital platforms in distance learning. They hope that a discussion on the future of education will begin as soon as possible and that the investments discussed in recent weeks will be used to create a public digital infrastructure for schools and universities.

      Dear colleagues and students,

      as you already know, since the COVID-19 emergency began, Italian schools and universities have relied on proprietary platforms and tools for distance learning (including exams), which are mostly produced by the “GAFAM” group of companies (Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon). There are a few exceptions, such as the Politecnico di Torino, which has adopted instead its own custom-built solutions. However, on July 16, 2020 the European Court of Justice issued a very important ruling, which essentially says that US companies do not guarantee user privacy in accordance with the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As a result, all data transfers from the EU to the United States must be regarded as non-compliant with this regulation, and are therefore illegal.

      A debate on this issue is currently underway in the EU, and the European Authority has explicitly invited “institutions, offices, agencies and organizations of the European Union to avoid transfers of personal data to the United States for new procedures or when securing new contracts with service providers.” In fact the Irish Authority has explicitly banned the transfer of Facebook user data to the United States. Finally, some studies underline how the majority of commercial platforms used during the “educational emergency” (primarily G-Suite) pose serious legal problems and represent a “systematic violation of the principles of transparency.”

      In this difficult situation, various organizations, including (as stated below) some university professors, are trying to help Italian schools and universities comply with the ruling. They do so in the interests not only of the institutions themselves, but also of teachers and students, who have the right to study, teach and discuss without being surveilled, profiled and catalogued. The inherent risks in outsourcing teaching to multinational companies, who can do as they please with our data, are not only cultural or economic, but also legal: anyone, in this situation, could complain to the privacy authority to the detriment of the institution for which they are working.

      However, the question goes beyond our own right, or that of our students, to privacy. In the renewed COVID emergency we know that there are enormous economic interests at stake, and the digital platforms, which in recent months have increased their turnover (see the study published in October by Mediobanca), now have the power to shape the future of education around the world. An example is what is happening in Italian schools with the national “Smart Class” project, financed with EU funds by the Ministry of Education. This is a package of “integrated teaching” where Pearson contributes the content for all the subjects, Google provides the software, and the hardware is the Acer Chromebook. (Incidentally, Pearson is the second largest publisher in the world, with a turnover of more than 4.5 billion euros in 2018.) And for the schools that join, it is not possible to buy other products.

      Finally, although it may seem like science fiction, in addition to stabilizing proprietary distance learning as an “offer”, there is already talk of using artificial intelligence to “support” teachers in their work.

      For all these reasons, a group of professors from various Italian universities decided to take action. Our initiative is not currently aimed at presenting an immediate complaint to the data protection officer, but at avoiding it, by allowing teachers and students to create spaces for discussion and encourage them to make choices that combine their freedom of teaching with their right to study. Only if the institutional response is insufficient or absent, we will register, as a last resort, a complaint to the national privacy authority. In this case the first step will be to exploit the “flaw” opened by the EU court ruling to push the Italian privacy authority to intervene (indeed, the former President, Antonello Soro, had already done so, but received no response). The purpose of these actions is certainly not to “block” the platforms that provide distance learning and those who use them, but to push the government to finally invest in the creation of a public infrastructure based on free software for scientific communication and teaching (on the model of what is proposed here and
      which is already a reality for example in France, Spain and other European countries).

      As we said above, before appealing to the national authority, a preliminary stage is necessary. Everyone must write to the data protection officer (DPO) requesting some information (attached here is the facsimile of the form for teachers we have prepared). If no response is received within thirty days, or if the response is considered unsatisfactory, we can proceed with the complaint to the national authority. At that point, the conversation will change, because the complaint to the national authority can be made not only by individuals, but also by groups or associations. It is important to emphasize that, even in this avoidable scenario, the question to the data controller is not necessarily a “protest” against the institution, but an attempt to turn it into a better working and study environment for everyone, conforming to European standards.

      https://theoreti.ca/?p=7684

  • #Remdesivir approved by #FDA to treat #COVID-19, but the evidence is mixed - Vox
    https://www.vox.com/21530401/remdesivir-approved-by-fda-covid-19-fda-gilead-veklury

    Faust said one of his concerns with the FDA’s remdesivir approval is a phenomenon known as #indication_creep, in which a treatment shown to work in only a limited set of circumstances gets prescribed to more and more people. The worry here is that remdesivir, which is approved only for Covid-19 patients over 12 years old who required hospitalization, could start being used in patients with milder Covid-19 illness, or in more severe cases past the point where it could be effective.

    “What will happen, I guarantee, is people will start to use the medication more than they need it,” Faust said. Since the course of treatment is five days, it could also extend the length of hospital stays in patients who would otherwise be discharged earlier, saddling them with unnecessary costs.

    Another concern is that the approval of remdesivir, especially with such mixed evidence for its effectiveness, could undermine further research.

    Topol noted that with remdesivir now as the only fully approved drug, it becomes much more difficult to conduct studies on other therapies because they now have to be compared against remdesivir, the new standard treatment, as well as a a placebo.

    That raises the cost and complexity of trials, delaying results. Such comparisons are worthwhile if the standard of care is effective, but it adds unnecessary complications if it’s not.

    It also makes it harder to recruit people for subsequent clinical trials of the drug to better validate its effectiveness. People may be more reluctant to sign up for a trial where they could get a placebo when they know they could get the actual drug.

    “The biggest, most serious problem is that we won’t get to the truth,” Topol said.

    It’s worth noting that remdesivir could still be a viable treatment for Covid-19, but the evidence presented so far is contradictory and more investigation is needed to clarify its effectiveness. So why did the FDA go ahead with its approval, then?

    Traduction approximative dans le lien ci-dessous

    La FDA a approuvé le remdesivir pour traiter le Covid-19. Les scientifiques remettent en question les preuves. - News 24
    https://news-24.fr/la-fda-a-approuve-le-remdesivir-pour-traiter-le-covid-19-les-scientifiques-r

    La FDA a déjà pris des décisions controversées concernant les médicaments pour traiter Covid-19. En mars, l’agence a accordé une autorisation d’utilisation d’urgence pour l’hydroxychloroquine, un médicament antipaludique, après que le président Trump l’a qualifié de « changeur de jeu ». Puis, en juin, la FDA a révoqué l’EUA, affirmant que l’hydroxychloroquine était « peu susceptible d’être efficace » et pourrait entraîner des problèmes cardiaques.

    Puis en août, l’agence a accordé une EUA pour le plasma de convalescence pour traiter Covid-19. Mais les National Institutes of Health ont déclaré que les preuves utilisées par la FDA étaient « insuffisantes ».

  • Labor organizer Jane McAlevey on how the left builds power all wrong - The Ezra Klein Show - Vox
    https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/3/17/21182149/jane-mcalevey-the-ezra-klein-show-labor-organizing

    By Ezra Klein@ezraklein Mar 17, 2020, The organizer, scholar, and writer gives a master class in political organizing on The Ezra Klein Show.

    The Bernie Sanders campaign is an organizing tour de force relative to the Joe Biden campaign, yet the latter has won primary after primary — with even higher turnouts than 2016. So does organizing even work? And, if so, what went wrong?

    To get a sense of how to answer these questions, I sat down with the scholar, writer, and organizer Jane McAlevey on The Ezra Klein Show. McAlevey has organized hundreds of thousands of workers on the front lines of America’s labor movement. She is also a senior policy fellow at UC Berkeley’s Labor Center and the author of three books on organizing, including, most recently, A Collective Bargain: Unions, Organizing, and the Fight for Democracy.

    McAlevey doesn’t pull her punches. She thinks the left builds political power all wrong. She thinks people are constantly mistaking “mobilizing” for “organizing,” and that social media has taught a generation of young activists the worst possible lessons. She thinks organized labor’s push for “card check” was a mistake but that there really is a viable path back to a strong labor movement. And since McAlevey is, above all, a teacher and an organizer, she offers what amounts to a master class in organizing, one relevant not just to building political power but to building anything.

    To McAlevey, organizing, at its core, is about something very simple and very close to the heart of this show: How do you talk to people who may not agree with you such that you can truly hear them, and they can truly hear you? This conversation ran long, but it ran long because it was damn good.

    Here’s a lightly edited transcript of part of our conversation, which we released this week on The Ezra Klein Show.

    Ezra Klein

    What is the difference between advocacy, mobilizing, and organizing?
    Jane McAlevey

    In the advocacy model, people aren’t really central to the solution. Instead, you have lawyers, public opinion researchers, and a full-time staff in Washington, DC. Greenpeace is an example. If you’re concerned about the planet, you write a check to Greenpeace and they’re going to take care of the problem for you. That’s advocacy.

    Then you move to the difference between mobilizing and organizing. It’s the difference between these two that I think most of the progressive movement is deeply confused about. Mobilizing is essentially doing a very good job at getting people off the couch who largely already agree with you. In the mobilizing model, you may be involving people in very large numbers, but the limitation of the mobilizing approach is that you’re only talking to people who agree with you already.

    Organizing, which I put the highest value on, is the process by which people come to change their opinions and change their views. Organizing is what I call “base expansion,” meaning it’s expanding either the political or the societal basis from which you can then later mobilize. What makes organizing different than all other kinds of activism is it puts you in direct contact every day with people who have no shared political values whatsoever. When you’re a union organizer, you get a list of let’s say a thousand employees and you’ve got to figure out how to build to 90 percent or greater unity with unbreakable solidarity and a tight, effective structure. So, essentially every single trade union unionization campaign I’ve negotiated is an experiment in how you build political unity in a time of intense polarization.
    Ezra Klein

    I’m interested in your thoughts on the 2020 Democratic primary. My observation is a lot of people in the Sanders campaign thought they were doing organizing when they were doing mobilizing. This is not to say anything good about the Biden campaign, which I think just skated by. But there seems to me to be a real distinction between the personality type and the temperament and the strategies of a mobilizer versus an organizer. And it seems to me that not only in the Sanders campaign but all over politics — and especially on social media — I see people acting in ways that wouldn’t be conducive to organizing.
    Jane McAlevey

    Mobilizers tend to be activists. They’re better engaging a self-selected crowd of people who exist in some bubble. When I’m looking for organizers, I’m looking for people who genuinely believe that ordinary people have high intelligence and who really deeply respect ordinary people. I start out every day genuinely believing that people can make radical changes in how they think about and see the world. And that means you have to be willing to work with them, even if their views are fairly different than your own.

    Almost every worker in a campaign I’ve worked on starts out with values that seem pretty different than mine. But you have to respect where they’re coming from, what shaped them, how they got there, and then have a theory of how to help them shift from maybe having the wrong idea of who’s to blame for the pain in their lives. They might be blaming Mexican immigrants for stealing their jobs instead of the CEOs of corporations that directly facilitated the departure of their job. And if you can’t look at them and imagine where they might be based on the fact that most people want to have clean water, a safe planet, a decent job, nice neighbors, and fairness, then you’re not going to be a good organizer.
    Ezra Klein

    One of the things that strikes me about your mobilizing-organizing distinction has to do with the fact that for each one there are different incentives around disagreement. When faced with disagreement, do you escalate or do you somehow find a way to synthesize or get around it? So, walk me through a typical interaction with a worker, specifically one who may disagree with you.
    Jane McAlevey

    When I start a conversation with a worker, I’m going to start by telling them exactly why I’m there. There’s no bullshitting: I’m here because coworkers of yours called up and they’re in and figuring out how you can make things better in the workplace. That’s it. I’m being very honest about why I’m on your door. The very next thing I’m going to do is ask them a question: If you could change three things at work tomorrow, what would they be?

    This question is going to give me immediate insight into your human priorities. So, when I later find out that we may have very different political views, it doesn’t really matter to me. If I know the three things that matter most to you about the workplace that you want to change, I’m sticking with that conversation the whole way through it. And I’m gonna help you understand who is in the way of fixing that problem and how only you and your coworkers can actually fix it.

    Let’s say a nurse says to me “I’m exhausted every day. I love my job in the ICU so much. But I’m so frustrated I can’t get my job done. We need more staff on the floors.” I don’t know if she’s Republican, a libertarian Democrat, Green Party, or has never voted in her life, but when she tells me that I’m off and running. The thing I’m gonna ask her is, “Given how much profit your employer had last year, why do you think you’re working so short on the floors in the hospital?” The whole point of organizing is I’m never going to tell her what the answer is. I’m going to just start framing a series of questions that are going help that nurse begin to understand why it is she works for a filthy rich employer and why it is she can’t get her job done. And it’s gonna be pretty crystal clear.

    #syndicalisme #organizing #USA

  • The wheel of first-time climate dudes - HEATED
    https://heated.world/p/the-wheel-of-first-time-climate-dudes

    Over the last few days, many readers have asked me to watch and review Michael Moore’s new climate change documentary, “Planet of the Humans.”

    The documentary—released for free on YouTube for Earth Day—makes some controversial arguments. They include:

    Renewable energy is a sham;

    Environmentalists have been duped by the fossil fuel industry into thinking it can work;

    The only way to save humanity now is through consumption reduction and population control.

    It’s not because the movie criticizes the environmental movement. Y’all know I love criticizing the environmental movement. It’s also not because the movie contains arguments I don’t agree with. Entertaining good-faith arguments about how to stop climate change is my job, and I have no reason at present to believe Moore and director Jeffrey Gibbs argued in bad faith.

    Really, the reason I don’t want to review this movie is because I’m tired of having to spend hours consuming and debunking messy-yet-blockbuster climate reporting from dudes who seemingly woke up a few mornings beforehand and decided they were climate journalists.

    I feel like a hamster on a wheel: The Wheel of First Time Climate Dudes.

    A caveat before everyone yells at me: Most big-moment climate journalism—particularly print and digital—is very good. And most of it is done by people of all genders who have lots of experience covering climate change.

    But when a big glitzy climate journalism project does contain problems, oftentimes a male person was behind it. That’s simply a product of who gets to do big projects in this industry.

    Ah ah !
    https://www.vox.com/2019/6/6/18655590/jeffrey-goldberg-atlantic-editor-in-chief-nieman-lab-interview-cover-stories-wh

    For example, Nathaniel Rich was primarily a novelist and essayist before he was given a whole issue of the New York Times Magazine to write the 30,000-word “Losing Earth.” It was a good piece of journalism in many ways, in part because Rich is a great writer. But the story’s main takeaway was that the climate crisis is the fault of human nature. That’s a harmful and inaccurate message. So nearly every climate journalist in existence had to write a criticism of that piece after it came out, this reporter included.

    In climate journalism, the stakes are extremely high. The purpose of this job is to chronicle and explain the rapid escalation of an existential threat to human life so that humans have the tools they need to address the threat. We only have so many opportunities to get it right before everything goes horribly wrong.

    I’m extremely tired, and frankly terrified, of how often we grant expert status to people who are not experts on the greatest existential threats we face as a species. We see it with climate change just as often as we see it with coronavirus. It’s all such a waste of extremely precious time.

    DeMelle is the executive director of DeSmog, a news site that’s been covering climate disinformation since before I knew climate change existed. And over the last several weeks, he and a team of reporters have put together an enormous project documenting the extensive overlap between the fossil fuel-funded climate disinformation machine and the coronavirus disinformation machine.

    https://www.desmogblog.com/covideniers-anti-science-covid-19-denial-overlaps-climate-denial

    “My motivation has always been that I don’t like liars, and I don’t like bullies,” DeMelle said. “And climate denial is a feast for both—those who enjoy confusing and distorting reality, and those who love bullying people, especially scientists. It’s just gross, and it motivates me to fight them and expose them and put them on record.”

    “I’d like them to be seen forever to have been on the wrong side of history.”

    • COVIDeniers: Anti-Science Coronavirus Denial Overlaps with Climate Denial | DeSmog
      https://www.desmogblog.com/covideniers-anti-science-covid-19-denial-overlaps-climate-denial
      https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/COVIDeniers+DeSmog.png

      The climate science denial machine created by the fossil fuel industry is now a major source of COVID-19 disinformation. Deniers have deployed many of the same tactics they have used to attack climate scientists and delay action to downplay the severity of the coronavirus outbreak and sow distrust in the response efforts of governments, scientists and the medical community — with deadly consequences that are now unfolding before our eyes.

      Others have used the threat of COVID-19 to argue against action to address climate change, which would leave us all more vulnerable to the wide array of future catastrophes that scientists say will result from additional degrees of warming.

      In the following series, DeSmog presents the #COVIDenial evidence our team has gathered revealing the overlapping cast of characters who have long attacked climate science and are now spreading COVID misinformation, touting false cures, ginning up conspiracy theories and fomenting attacks on public health experts. We began tracking this overlap in March 2020, when Sharon Kelly wrote Meet the Climate Science Deniers Who Downplayed COVID-19 Risks.

  • #Coronavirus in black people: We need to talk about medical racism - Vox
    https://www.vox.com/2020/6/2/21277987/coronavirus-in-black-people-covid-19-testing-treatment-medical-racism

    Throughout US history, Black people have endured a medical system that has been simultaneously exploitative and dismissive.

    [...]

    The larger American public views this abuse as a thing of the distant past. However, sadly, that is not the case. For example, in the 1990s, the Kennedy Krieger lead abatement repair and maintenance study intentionally exposed Black youths to lead in their homes to study the effects of partial lead abatement.

    In the same decade, the fenfluramine study was attempting to explore potential links between genetics and aggression in a disproportionate number of Black and Latino boys. Those conducting the study told caregivers that they were investigating the emotional and physical welfare of families with children in the court system while actually subjecting these children to a drug that was later discovered to have negative cardiac impacts. (Also, let’s not overlook the racist assumption that aggression may be genetic in Black and Latino people.)

    All of these — and, sadly, many more — are examples of the many ways in which our medical system has gained knowledge about health and the human body from the suffering of Black people.

    #etats-unis #santé #racisme #criminel #crimes

  • Police brutality and Covid-19 are both public health crises - Vox
    https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/6/1/21276828/pandemic-protests-police-public-health-black-lives-matter

    America’s crises are boiling over, one into another. Amid the coronavirus pandemic, masses of people are taking to the streets to protest police brutality after the death of George Floyd in Minnesota and other victims of racial violence.

    These two stories are linked. They are both public health stories. The link is systemic racism.

    “The same broad-sweeping structural racism that enables police brutality against black Americans is also responsible for higher mortality among black Americans with Covid-19,” Maimuna Majumder, a Harvard epidemiologist working on the Covid-19 response, tells Vox.

    “One in every 1,000 black men and boys can expect to be killed by police in this country,” she says. “To me, this clearly illustrates why police brutality is a public health problem; anything that causes mortality at such a scale is a public health problem.”

  • Paranoia about cheating is making online education terrible for everyone - Vox
    https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/4/21241062/schools-cheating-proctorio-artificial-intelligence

    Morceaux choisis :

    [...] As tests must happen remotely in the Covid-19 crisis, Raza’s school is one of many using a mixture of robots and video feeds to make sure students don’t cheat.

    Worse, the tool’s facial detection algorithm seemed to struggle to recognize them, so they needed to sit in the full light of the window to better expose the contours of their face, in their view an indication that the system might be biased.

    But there are varying levels of automation, as well. For instance, Examity also uses AI to verify students’ identities, analyze their keystrokes, and, of course, ensure they’re not cheating. Proctorio uses artificial intelligence to conduct gaze detection, which tracks whether a student is looking away from their screens. The company founder and CEO Mike Olsen, apparently bullish about the service’s automated nature, told Recode in an email that the company has fewer than 100 employees and doesn’t need “humans in call centers.”

    Some students seem to hate these services, and social media is chock-full of their grievances, from criticisms of the software to objections that the tool is just plain annoying

    “We will never be able to stop cheating in online learning, just like we’ve never been able to stop cheating in offline learning,” Dawson admits, explaining that schools might just be investing in a sort of education “security theater.”

    The shift to online learning is inevitably changing views not just on cheating but also on what it really means to test students’ knowledge. Some professors are looking for other ways to measure learning, arguing that assessments online don’t necessarily need to be traditional exams.

    #continuitepedagogique #education #onlinelearning

  • Coronavirus economy plans are clear : No return to normal in 2020 - Vox
    https://www.vox.com/2020/4/10/21215494/coronavirus-plans-social-distancing-economy-recession-depression-unemployment

    Over the past few days, I’ve been reading the major plans for what comes after social distancing. You can read them, too. There’s one from the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, the left-leaning Center for American Progress, Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics, and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Romer.

    I thought, perhaps naively, that reading them would be a comfort — at least then I’d be able to imagine the path back to normal. But it wasn’t. In different ways, all these plans say the same thing: Even if you can imagine the herculean political, social, and economic changes necessary to manage our way through this crisis effectively, there is no normal for the foreseeable future.

    #prospective

    avec ce passage :

    The alternative to mass surveillance is mass testing. Romer’s proposal is to deploy testing on a scale no one else is contemplating — 22 million tests per day — so that the entire country is being tested every 14 days, and anyone who tests positive can be quickly quarantined. He shows, in a series of useful simulations, that even if the test has a high false-negative rate, the retesting is sufficient to keep the virus contained, and thus the country can return to normalcy rapidly. Of the various plans, this one seems likeliest to permit a true and rapid economic recovery.

    parle aussi de #virusphone