• La publicité limite la grammaire des interactions sociales | Entre les lignes entre les mots
    https://entreleslignesentrelesmots.blog/2022/04/20/la-publicite-limite-la-grammaire-des-interactions-socia

    La publicité, partie intégrande du cycle de la réalisation de la valeur et du fétichisme de la marchandise (pour utiliser des notions de la critique de l’économie politique) contribue à l’augmentation et au renouvellement – souhaitée par les entreprises – de besoins souvent artificiels. La logique publicitaire (une véritable pollution imposée aux consommateurs et consommatrices) au cœur du fonctionnement de l’internet me semble hautement critiquable. Cet outil relevant du commun, son éventuellement financement – comme son fonctionnement – ne peux relever de la sphère privative lucrative.

    Cela étant précisé, cet ouvrage contribue à la compréhension de l’« économie de l’attention » et de mécanismes publicitaire propres au fonctionnement de l’internet, « La publicité numérique est le cœur funeste qui fait vivre l’internet ».

    Tim Hwang discute donc du jargon de la publicité programmatique, de temps réel, de plates-formes logicielles, de monétisation par la vente de l’attention des consommateurs et consommatrices, de risques systémiques, des ressemblances entre les marchés de la publicité programmatique et les marchés financiers, des enchères publicitaires, des algorithmes, « La technologie permet de jouer le jeu, mais ne dicte pas les règles du jeu », d’attention marchandisée, « Le concept amorphe, informe, de l’attention est désormais un ensemble d’éléments comparables et distinguables qui peuvent être captés, évaluées et vendus », de standardisation, de spéculation, de marchandises « abstraites », d’opacité, d’infrastructure de surveillance, de déferlement de données, de trading algorithmique, de dark pools, de nouveaux intermédiaires, de détermination des prix, de dépendance à l’égard des plateformes dominantes, d’ergonomie souterraine, de qualité, de la perte d’« efficacité » des bannières, de bloqueurs de publicité, de visibilité et d’invisibilité, « Un nombre stupéfiant des ces annonces n’est jamais vu par qui que ce soit »…

    J’ai notamment apprécié les passages sur la fraude publicitaire, la fraude au clic, « publicités… vues uniquement par des robots ou par des humains dont le travail consiste à cliquer dessus », l’usurpation de domaines, le développement d’entreprises criminelles… L’auteur interroge l’attention réelle, d’autant que se développe « le spectre du désintérêt du public pour la publicité en ligne ».

    Je ne reviens pas sur mes remarques antérieures. J’ajoute cependant que contrairement à l’auteur, il me semble possible d’aborder le fonctionnement de l’internet sans aucune publicité. La gratuité réelle pour les utilisateurs et utilisatrices peut être construite par une prise en charge collective de ce bien commun que devrait être l’internet.

    Il convient donc à la fois de combattre la place des Gafam, la dictature des algorithmes (masquant des choix et des programmations par des individus), la pollution publicitaire et la marchandisation du monde.

    #Tim_Hwang #Publicité #Economie_attention

  • Usbek & Rica - « Le business de la pub en ligne est bâti sur une fiction : son efficacité »
    https://usbeketrica.com/fr/article/le-business-de-la-pub-en-ligne-est-bati-sur-une-fiction-son-efficacite
    https://usbeketrica.com/uploads/media/1200x628/09/92839-hwang_ouverture.png?v=1-0

    ARCHIVE – Dans son livre Subprime Attention Crisis (FSG Originals, 2020), le chercheur américain Tim Hwang, passé par Google et IBM, et aujourd’hui pensionnaire de l’université de Georgetown, enquête sur le marché de la publicité en ligne. Sa conclusion : la pub ciblée ne fonctionne pas et ce secteur d’activité, qui draine des sommes vertigineuses, a tout d’une bulle spéculative, prête à exploser.

    À l’occasion de la parution en français de cet ouvrage (Le grand krach de l’attention, C&F éditions, 2022), nous publions ici l’entretien que Tim Hwang nous avait accordé au printemps 2021, dans le cadre du dossier de notre magazine consacré au futur de la pub.

    Vous comparez le marché de la publicité en ligne à la bulle des subprimes qui a précédé la crise financière de 2008. Quels sont les points communs entre ces deux marchés  ?

    Un très grand nombre d’études montrent que les retours sur investissement de la publicité en ligne sont anémiques ou carrément négatifs. Et pourtant, l’argent continue d’affluer. Il y a un effet de mode, de mimétisme, l’idée que si tout le monde met de l’argent dans la publicité en ligne c’est bien que cela doit marcher. Mais je formule effectivement une autre hypothèse qui renvoie à la bulle des subprimes. Dans les années 1980 et 1990, de nombreuses économies avaient des problèmes et, dans les années 2000, les investisseurs ont cherché des placements sûrs. Une ruée s’est alors opérée vers les bons du Trésor américain dont le prix, progressivement, a augmenté. Il a fallu trouver autre chose, en l’espèce les hypothèques. Et la demande a été si forte que des hypothèques de moins en moins solides ont été mises sur le marché, adossées à des crédits accordés à des foyers peu ou pas solvables. Ainsi a débuté la crise des subprimes. Un phénomène similaire est aujourd’hui à l’œuvre avec la pub en ligne. Tout le marché de la publicité se redirige vers Internet, la demande est extrêmement forte et on commercialise des produits d’une qualité de plus en plus médiocre. Nous faisons face à une bulle spéculative, une distorsion entre le prix de la publicité en ligne, qui ne cesse de grimper, et sa valeur réelle.

    La publicité est au cœur du modèle économique d’Internet. C’est même son « péché originel » selon la formule du chercheur et activiste Ethan Zuckerman. Est-il possible de rompre avec ce modèle  ?

    Même si Facebook ou Google – les deux plus gros vendeurs de pub d’Internet – semblent inarrêtables, il ne faut pas oublier que ces entreprises sont jeunes et qu’Internet a déjà changé à de multiples reprises, et de manière radicale, au cours des dernières décennies. J’ai des amis qui sont des « anarchistes de la pub », qui voudraient s’en débarrasser totalement… Je suis plus modéré. La publicité est utile pour rendre certains services gratuits, je pense en particulier aux moteurs de recherche. Simplement, la pub ne doit pas être l’alpha et l’oméga du Web. Par exemple, les États pourraient subventionner l’accès à certains services essentiels aujourd’hui financés par la pub. Nous sommes à un tournant, un moment de renégociation du contrat social avec les grandes entreprises de la tech. Il ne faut donc ignorer aucune piste.

    #Tim_Hwang #Publicité #Economie_attention

  • Ad Tech Could Be the Next Internet Bubble | WIRED
    https://www.wired.com/story/ad-tech-could-be-the-next-internet-bubble

    We live in an age of manipulation. An extensive network of commercial surveillance tracks our every move and a fair number of our thoughts. That data is fed into sophisticated artificial intelligence and used by advertisers to hit us with just the right sales pitch, at just the right time, to get us to buy a toothbrush or sign up for a meal kit or donate to a campaign. The technique is called behavioral advertising, and it raises the frightening prospect that we’ve been made the subjects of a highly personalized form of mind control.

    Or maybe that fear is precisely backwards. The real trouble with digital advertising, argues former Google employee Tim Hwang—and the more immediate danger to our way of life—is that it doesn’t work.

    Hwang’s new book, Subprime Attention Crisis, lays out the case that the new ad business is built on a fiction. Microtargeting is far less accurate, and far less persuasive, than it’s made out to be, he says, and yet it remains the foundation of the modern internet: the source of wealth for some of the world’s biggest, most important companies, and the mechanism by which almost every “free” website or app makes money. If that shaky foundation ever were to crumble, there’s no telling how much of the wider economy would go down with it.

    Hwang draws an extended analogy between the pre-2007 housing bubble and today’s market for digital advertising. In the years leading up to the Great Recession, American lenders went wild, issuing mortgages to people who (in retrospect) were unlikely to pay them off. Those loans—the infamous “subprime” mortgages—were then packaged into complex financial instruments that hid the shakiness of the underlying assets. Investment banks and other financial institutions bought into those securities without quite knowing what was in them. When the housing market sagged, it triggered a panic that tanked the global economy.

    Just as housing played an outsized role in pre-crash financial markets, so does advertising in the digital economy. Google earns more than 80 percent of its revenue from advertising; Facebook, around 99 percent. Advertising also makes up a fast-growing share of Amazon’s revenue. The global market for digital advertising was $325 billion last year and is projected to grow to $525 billion by 2024. All that wealth is used to fund myriad other ventures—including cutting-edge research into AI and clean energy—that might wither away if the advertising spigot were turned off.

    If the financial market of the aughts was dangerously opaque, so, too, is modern internet advertising. In the early days of online ads, a brand would strike a deal with a website owner to host a paid banner. The onscreen space for that image, known as the ad inventory, would be sold by the publisher directly. (The magazine you’re reading right now made the first such transaction, back in 1994.) Today, the process has grown far more complicated, and humans are barely involved. “As they do in modern-day capital markets, machines dominate the modern-day ecosystem of advertising on the web,” Hwang writes. Now, whenever you load a website, scroll on social media, or hit Enter on a Google search, hundreds or thousands of companies compete in a cascade of auctions to show you their ad. The process, known as “programmatic” advertising, occurs in milliseconds, tens of billions of times each day. Only automated software can manage it.

    It’s fair to wonder why, if programmatic advertising is such a bum deal, so many brands continue to pour money into it. The reasons are manifold and overlapping. To begin, most of the people responsible for ad spending have no idea where their ads are actually running, let alone how they’re performing, and certainly have not brushed up on the latest research papers. That’s especially true for the small and medium-size businesses that make up the bulk of Google and Facebook advertising customers. I spoke recently with the owner of a successful online audio equipment store who had recently learned, thanks to a chance encounter with an expert, that 90 percent of his programmatic ad budget was being wasted on fraudulent clicks. Most other merchants simply never find out what happens after they send an ad out into the world.

    So if Hwang is right that digital advertising is a bubble, then the pop would have to come from advertisers abandoning the platforms en masse, leading to a loss of investor confidence and a panicked stock sell-off. After months of watching Google and Facebook stock prices soar, even amid a pandemic-induced economic downturn and a high-profile Facebook advertiser boycott, it’s hard to imagine such a thing. But then, that’s probably what they said about tulips.

    This is not something to be cheered. However much targeted advertising may have skewed the internet—prioritizing attention-grabbiness over quality, as Hwang suggests—that doesn’t mean we ought to let the system collapse on its own. We might hope instead for what Hwang calls a “controlled demolition” of the business model, in which it unravels gradually enough for us to manage the consequences.

    It’s a strange thing, the internet economy. The product that generates all the money doesn’t work very well, and when it does work, people tend to hate it. The question is which problem should be solved.

    #Tim_Hwang #Publicité #Economie_attention

  • Nonfiction Book Review: Subprime Attention Crisis: Advertising and the Time Bomb at the Heart of the Internet by Tim Hwang. FSG Originals x Logic, $15 trade paper (176p) ISBN 978-0-374-53865-1
    https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-374-53865-1

    Hwang, a research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, rebukes the current economic model of the internet in his bracing debut. Claiming that programmatic digital advertising (“the money machine that has fueled the meteoric rise of the most prominent tech giants and content creators of the modern era”) is built on fraudulent metrics, Hwang compares the current situation to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis and the 1929 stock market crash. Marketing agencies and companies such as Facebook and Google, which make their profits on ad sales, have “systemic incentives to oversell the value and price of advertising inventory,” Hwang writes. He notes that younger (and more valuable) demographic groups are unlikely to click on ads, and describes how techniques such as “click farming” and “domain spoofing” exploit ad buyers. In addition to a familiar call for tighter industry regulation, Hwang makes the more radical argument that “a well-considered and structured implosion” of the programmatic advertising model would pave the way for a better internet that’s not funded by the commodification of user attention. Using apt analogies and accessible terminology, Hwang makes a persuasive case that the internet bubble is bound to burst. This wake-up call rings loud and clear. (Oct.)

    #Tim_Hwanf #Economie_attention #Krach_attention #Publicité

  • The Facebook Papers: Social Network Shaken by Content, User Woe
    https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/facebook/facebook-papers-social-network-shaken-content-user-woe

    The documents provide rare, vivid insight into ways Facebook, under the guidance of Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg, created a Silicon Valley social media behemoth that — while frequently posting lavish sales and profit gains — has also faltered in its mission to give users the tools they need to build community and bring the world closer together.

    In its own defense, Facebook points to new products and services it is developing to attract younger users; it notes that hate speech represents well under 1% of overall content on its platform and is declining; it says that it uses research, hypothetical tests and other methods to analyze how it recommends content and improve on efforts to curb the spread of harmful content. Facebook also contends that it has made adequate disclosures concerning growth and that the documents Haugen shared with the SEC represent a “curated selection” that “can in no way be used to draw fair conclusions about us.”

    Even so, the company’s missteps are beginning to take a toll. The documents chronicle worsening morale among some staff and disagreements over the best way to combat bad content; Facebook’s shares have lost more than 10% since the Wall Street Journal began publishing stories based on the whistle-blower’s documents; and lawmakers, already weighing legislation that would rein in Facebook’s power, are calling for even more stringent oversight.

    Other insights gleaned from the documents, researchers and people familiar with Facebook, including current and former employees:

    Facebook executives have long known that the platform’s hate-speech problem was bigger and more entrenched than the company discloses. While Facebook prioritizes rooting out violence and hateful content in English-speaking Western nations, it neglects developing regions that are more vulnerable to real-world harm from negativity on social media.
    A Facebook team tasked with stemming the flow of harmful posts was hamstrung by a lack of staffing, limits placed on its product development and the platform’s engagement-focused algorithm that often ends up promoting content that can be false and divisive.
    Facebook staff who study misinformation have concluded that the social network’s core products contribute to the spread of harmful material, and the company’s own efforts to quell misinformation are sometimes undermined by political considerations.
    In 2019, Facebook set up a test account in India to determine how its tools affect people in its most important market; within three weeks, the fictional user’s account devolved into a maelstrom of fake news and incendiary images.
    Facebook’s own staff, including internal researchers, faulted the company for failing to thwart the proliferation of groups that fomented violence on Jan. 6.

    Here’s a selected list of takeaways from The Facebook Papers from other publications:

    The ubiquitous “Like” button and the ability to share posts became essential to Facebook’s identity. But internal documents show the company is struggling to deal with the effects of those tools, including amplifying hate speech and misinformation, the New York Times reported.
    Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg personally agreed to comply with demands from Vietnam’s ruling Communist Party to censor anti-government dissidents or risk getting knocked offline in one of Facebook’s most lucrative Asian markets, the Washington Post reported.
    Facebook has a multi-tired system of sorting countries that receive extra protection during elections, with the U.S., India and Brazil getting the highest priority while others get very little protection unless material is escalated by content moderators, The Verge reported.
    The leaked Facebook documents offer a treasure trove of insight into Washington’s antitrust war against the company, according to Politico. The papers show in granular detail that Facebook knows it dominates the arenas it considers central to its fortunes — contradicting the company’s own public assertions and providing potential fuel for antitrust authorities and lawmakers scrutinizing Facebook’s sway over the market.

    #Facebook_Files #Economie_attention

  • Comment l’algorithme de Facebook échappe au contrôle de ses créateurs
    https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2021/10/26/comment-l-algorithme-de-facebook-echappe-au-controle-de-ses-createurs_609988

    EnquêteFacebook Files | Dans des documents internes de l’entreprise, ses ingénieurs avouent leur incompréhension face à un code informatique aux effets imprévus, qui fait du réseau social une machine complexe, difficile à maîtriser.

    C’est peut-être le principal sentiment qui émerge à la lecture des « Facebook Files ». Parmi ces milliers de pages de documents internes à Facebook, récupérés par Frances Haugen, une ancienne employée, et transmis par une source parlementaire américaine à plusieurs médias, dont Le Monde, de nombreux passages semblent indiquer que Facebook ne comprend plus, ou mal, ce que font ses propres algorithmes. Et que son réseau social est devenu une machine difficile à contrôler.
    Les « Facebook Files », une plongée dans les rouages de la machine à « likes »

    Les « Facebook Files » sont plusieurs centaines de documents internes à Facebook copiés par Frances Haugen, une spécialiste des algorithmes, lorsqu’elle était salariée du réseau social. Ils ont été fournis au régulateur américain et au Congrès, puis transmis par une source parlementaire américaine à plusieurs médias, expurgés des informations personnelles des salariés de Facebook. En Europe, ces médias sont, outre Le Monde, le quotidien allemand Süddeutsche Zeitung, les chaînes de télévision WDR et NDR, le Groupe Tamedia, Knack, Berlingske et l’OCCRP.

    Ils montrent que Facebook consacre davantage de ressources à limiter ses effets néfastes en Occident, au détriment du reste du monde. Ils attestent que ces effets sont connus en interne mais les signaux d’alerte pas toujours pris en compte. Enfin, ils prouvent que les algorithmes de Facebook sont devenus d’une complexité telle qu’ils semblent parfois échapper à leurs propres auteurs.

    #Facebook_Files #Algorithmes #Complexité #Economie_attention

  • La réponse de Facebook au flot de messages antivaccination a été mal ciblée
    https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2021/10/27/contre-les-messages-antivaccination-l-approche-en-plusieurs-doses-de-faceboo

    EnquêteFacebook Files | D’après des documents internes, le réseau social a vite réagi contre les messages antivaccination. Mais les outils mis en place n’ont pas suffi à endiguer les nombreux messages problématiques.

    Mars 2021 : l’équipe chargée de lutter contre la désinformation médicale sur Facebook a une mauvaise surprise. Un message en anglais affirmant que « tous les vaccins contre le Covid sont expérimentaux » et que les personnes vaccinées « font partie de l’expérience » a été vu plus de 3 millions de fois et partagé plus de 50 000 fois, alors qu’il aurait dû être supprimé, conformément aux règles de modération du réseau social. Enquête faite, la raison de cette erreur de modération apparaît clairement : en raison d’un bug, l’outil automatique de Facebook a cru que le message était écrit en roumain, et l’a mal compris.
    Lire aussi Article réservé à nos abonnés Facebook Files : hors des Etats-Unis, les failles de la modération dans des dizaines de langues

    Au-delà de l’anecdote – les erreurs commises par les algorithmes de détection automatique de Facebook sont courantes sur tous les sujets –, la pandémie a mis à rude épreuve les capacités de modération de la plate-forme, et l’a forcée à adapter sa manière de gérer de nombreux problèmes. C’est l’un des principaux enseignements que l’on peut tirer, à la lecture de nombreux documents internes à Facebook anonymisés, récupérés par son ex-employée Frances Haugen et transmis à plusieurs médias, dont Le Monde, par une source parlementaire américaine.

    #facebook_Files #Antivax #Complotisme #Economie_attention

  • Opinion | Mike Bloomberg Is Hacking Your Attention - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/opinion/mike-bloomberg-campaign.html

    Un excellent papier sur ce qu’est réellement l’économie de l’attention : se moquer du message, occuper l’espace. La politique devrait être le contraire.... ouuups, en disant cela, je fais tellement vieux jeu, voire vingtième siècle.

    Mike Bloomberg and his presidential campaign respect the fundamental equation governing the modern internet: Shamelessness and conflict equal attention. And attention equals power.

    Since declaring his campaign late last fall, the former New York City mayor has used his billions to outspend his competition in an attempt to hack the country’s attention. It seems to be working — this column is yet more proof.

    There are his ubiquitous television, YouTube and Facebook ads. There are his tweets, many of which are weird enough to generate the right amount of viral confusion or are pugnacious enough toward Donald Trump to provoke the ire of the presidential Twitter feed. Then there are the influencers. Starting this week the Bloomberg campaign enlisted the help of a number of popular meme-makers to create sponsored Instagram content for the candidate. The rollout was extremely effective, generating substantial praise and disdain. The ratio doesn’t really matter — what matters is that people were talking about Mr. Bloomberg, a candidate who skipped Iowa and New Hampshire and is nonetheless a top-tier contender for the Democratic nomination.

    These Extremely Online tactics fit the larger ethos of the Bloomberg campaign, which feels like a control group experiment for a study positing, “What if you ran a presidential campaign so optimized for efficiency and reach that you cut the human element of campaigning altogether?” As my newsroom colleague Matt Flegenheimer wrote in January, Mr. Bloomberg is not really playing chess, “he is more accurately working to bury the board with a gusher of cash so overpowering that everyone forgets how the game was always played in the first place.”

    This is certainly true from a media buying standpoint. Mr. Bloomberg has blanketed the airwaves with television and radio ads, spending over $250 million since beginning his campaign in November. Online, his campaign is even more prolific — NBC News calculated that he’s spent more than $1 million a day on average during the past two weeks on Facebook. He’s spent so much that marketers suggest the flood of ads might be driving up prices for the Trump campaign and taking eyeballs away from the president’s own buckshot campaign to own voters’ news feeds.

    At the heart of these tactics is a genuine shamelessness that fits perfectly not just with politics but also the internet at large. Mr. Bloomberg is unapologetic about — and unafraid to hide — the money he’s spending. That transactional approach is an excellent match for online influencer culture, where young internet celebrities aren’t often overly particular about accepting good money to endorse suspect products. In the Instagram meme influencers, the former mayor seems to have found a kindred spirit of attention economy capitalists. “I would be down — bread is bread,” a teenager who runs the meme page @BigDadWhip, told The Times’s Taylor Lorenz when asked about posting sponsored content on behalf of the candidate.

    On Twitter, where some Democratic hopefuls have adopted a “they go low, we go high” mentality, Bloombergians have instead opted to wade into the mud and wrestle with Mr. Trump’s Twitter feed. The strategy plays up controversy at every available opportunity to generate attention.

    After news broke that the president mocked Mr. Bloomberg’s height in a Super Bowl interview with Sean Hannity, the Bloomberg campaign spokeswoman Julie Wood fired back with a Trumpian line of her own: “The president is lying. He is a pathological liar who lies about everything: his fake hair, his obesity, and his spray-on tan.”
    Editors’ Picks
    How My Worst Date Ever Became My Best
    Zonked on Vicodin in the Corner Office
    He Was Fearless on a Football Field. But He Sensed Something Wasn’t Right.

    The back and forth generated a medium-size controversy and news cycle of its own, the subtext of which was Mr. Bloomberg as a worthy sparring partner for Mr. Trump. Tweets and cable chyrons flashed with the former mayor’s name. Earned media. Mission accomplished.

    the (sad) way you can tell bloomberg’s reply-to-trump twitter strategy is working is that crypto dudes are trying to draft off the engagement in replies (we’re all gonna die) pic.twitter.com/SqH7gcJGl7
    — Charlie Warzel (@cwarzel) February 13, 2020

    What the Bloomberg campaign seems to have bought into is that, when you lean into the potent combination of content creation and shamelessness, any reaction it provokes is a good reaction. This strategy provides a certain amount of freedom to a candidate when you don’t care what people think of you — as long as they’re thinking of you.

    Take Mr. Bloomberg’s brazen spending, which has prompted claims that he’s an oligarch trying to bypass democracy by buying the presidency. Plenty of candidates would get defensive at such speculation. Mr. Bloomberg is unfazed. Who cares?! At least he’s in the conversation. More than that, the conversation is now centered around the idea that he could very well win.

    The whole thing sounds Trumpian because it is. The Trump campaign was unabashed in 2016 and beyond about its plan to “flood the zone” with garbage or ragebait. The strategy worked in part because it engaged and energized his base. And, as Sean Illing detailed recently at Vox, it exploited a media ecosystem that is built to give attention to lies (in order to debunk them) and outlandishness (because it’s entertaining or newsworthy).

    What remains to be seen is how Mr. Bloomberg will handle criticism in the fight for attention. The president could punch back at critics — high or low — since he’s unencumbered by either shame or decency. Trump supporters love him because cruelty is the point. But Mr. Bloomberg won’t be able to mock critics of his beloved stop-and-frisk policies (for which he recently apologized), for instance. Unlike Mr. Trump, there are lines Mr. Bloomberg will most likely not cross.

    Other Democratic candidates have tried to apply Mr. Trump’s media hacking lessons — “I would be lying if I said I hadn’t studied some of his approach with the media and what worked, what didn’t work,” Lis Smith, a top adviser to Pete Buttigieg, recently admitted. But few are able to replicate the tactics. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez runs a similar playbook online, but hers is far more genuine — the product of being a millennial who is innately very good at social media and who also happens to be a congresswoman.

    The Bloomberg campaign is far less organic. This week’s Instagram meme campaign is a great example. Though it was a shameless attempt on behalf of the 77-year-old billionaire to buy off teenage influencers, the campaign perfectly exploited attention by being inscrutable. “It’s the most successful ad that I’ve ever posted,” one of the influencers told The Times. “I think a lot of it came from people being confused whether or not it was real.”

    Release some memes. Sow some light chaos in the timeline. Send reporters on a wild-goose chase. Meanwhile, this happens:

    THE MEME GODS OF INSTAGRAM

    Just 263 days until the election, folks. pic.twitter.com/ndD8z53Fq9
    — Brandon Wall (@Walldo) February 13, 2020

    Who cares about inorganic motives if the attention they generate is very organic?

    The strategy is, as we’re seeing, politically effective. Just ask Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor. Mr. Patrick and Mr. Bloomberg announced their campaigns around the same time. They have fairly comparable records of governing. One struggled to raise money, chose not to engage and faded into the depths of obscurity. The other, the one with the war chest and shamelessness, is still in the race.

    Attention is like television airtime in a battleground state: There’s a finite amount of it. For Democrats whose prime interest is defeating Donald Trump at all costs, this is exciting. But the strategy is also deeply cynical, exhausting and potentially damaging for those of us left to consume it. For citizens looking for a movement or big, structural change or even just a genuine vision for the future of the country, the strategy is disheartening — just another brazen attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator instincts of the internet that leaves a sinking feeling that shameless memes, Twitter dunks and toxic screaming into the algorithmic void have become politics as usual.

    Or maybe it’s always been this way. After all, what is politics if not a long, well-funded attempt at hacking people’s attention?

    #Economie_attention #Michael_Bloomberg #Politique_USA

  • Instagram Is Hiding Likes. Will That Reduce Anxiety? - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/world/instagram-hidden-likes.html

    Instagram did not share any information about what the testing with users in Canada has shown, nor would it say how long the testing will take place in each country. It is also not clear how the company is measuring the test results.

    In late April, Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, announced at Facebook’s annual event for developers that the testing would begin in Canada.

    “We don’t want Instagram to feel like a competition,” Mr. Mosseri said at the event. “We want people to worry a little bit less about how many likes they’re getting on Instagram and spend a bit more time connecting with the people they care about.”

    On Wednesday, Mr. Mosseri announced the test’s expansion to the six additional countries on Twitter.

    Rozanna Purcell, a model in Ireland with nearly 300,000 Instagram followers, also welcomed the change.

    “I get so many messages of young girls in school who say how down they are and feel like they’re not good enough because their peers get more likes than them,” Ms. Purcell said. “We have enough things in society to compare ourselves to, so getting rid of numbers can only be a good thing.”

    But not everybody is excited about hiding like counts.

    Adam Liaw, a chef and author in Australia with more than 100,000 Instagram followers, said on Twitter that he thought the change was a “huge mistake” that would ultimately lead to the death of Instagram.

    #Instagram #Like #Pression #Economie_attention

  • The Urgent Quest for Slower, Better News | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-urgent-quest-for-slower-better-news

    In 2008, the Columbia Journalism Review published an article with the headline “Overload!,” which examined news fatigue in “an age of too much information.” When “Overload!” was published, Blackberrys still dominated the smartphone market, push notifications hadn’t yet to come to the iPhone, retweets weren’t built into Twitter, and BuzzFeed News did not exist. Looking back, the idea of suffering from information overload in 2008 seems almost quaint. Now, more than a decade later, a fresh reckoning seems to be upon us. Last year, Tim Cook, the chief executive officer of Apple, unveiled a new iPhone feature, Screen Time, which allows users to track their phone activity. During an interview at a Fortune conference, Cook said that he was monitoring his own usage and had “slashed” the number of notifications he receives. “I think it has become clear to all of us that some of us are spending too much time on our devices,” Cook said.

    It is worth considering how news organizations have contributed to the problems Newport and Cook describe. Media outlets have been reduced to fighting over a shrinking share of our attention online; as Facebook, Google, and other tech platforms have come to monopolize our digital lives, news organizations have had to assume a subsidiary role, relying on those sites for traffic. That dependence exerts a powerful influence on which stories that are pursued, how they’re presented, and the speed and volume at which they’re turned out. In “World Without Mind: the Existential Threat of Big Tech,” published in 2017, Franklin Foer, the former editor-in-chief of The New Republic, writes about “a mad, shameless chase to gain clicks through Facebook” and “a relentless effort to game Google’s algorithms.” Newspapers and magazines have long sought to command large readerships, but these efforts used to be primarily the province of circulation departments; newsrooms were insulated from these pressures, with little sense of what readers actually read. Nowadays, at both legacy news organizations and those that were born online, audience metrics are everywhere. At the Times, everyone in the newsroom has access to an internal, custom-built analytics tool that shows how many people are reading each story, where those people are coming from, what devices they are using, how the stories are being promoted, and so on. Additional, commercially built audience tools, such as Chartbeat and Google Analytics, are also widely available. As the editor of newyorker.com, I keep a browser tab open to Parse.ly, an application that shows me, in real time, various readership numbers for the stories on our Web site.

    Even at news organizations committed to insuring that editorial values—and not commercial interests—determine coverage, it can be difficult for editors to decide how much attention should be paid to these metrics. In “Breaking News: the Remaking of Journalism and Why It Matters,” Alan Rusbridger, the former editor-in-chief of the Guardian, recounts the gradual introduction of metrics into his newspaper’s decision-making processes. The goal, he writes, is to have “a data-informed newsroom, not a data-led one.” But it’s hard to know when the former crosses over into being the latter.

    For digital-media organizations sustained by advertising, the temptations are almost irresistible. Each time a reader comes to a news site from a social-media or search platform, the visit, no matter how brief, brings in some amount of revenue. Foer calls this phenomenon “drive-by traffic.” As Facebook and Google have grown, they have pushed down advertising prices, and revenue-per-click from drive-by traffic has shrunk; even so, it continues to provide an incentive for any number of depressing modern media trends, including clickbait headlines, the proliferation of hastily written “hot takes,” and increasingly homogeneous coverage as everyone chases the same trending news stories, so as not to miss out on the traffic they will bring. Any content that is cheap to produce and has the potential to generate clicks on Facebook or Google is now a revenue-generating “audience opportunity.”

    Among Boczkowski’s areas of research is how young people interact with the news today. Most do not go online seeking the news; instead, they encounter it incidentally, on social media. They might get on their phones or computers to check for updates or messages from their friends, and, along the way, encounter a post from a news site. Few people sit down in the morning to read the print newspaper or make a point of watching the T.V. news in the evening. Instead, they are constantly “being touched, rubbed by the news,” Bockzkowski said. “It’s part of the environment.”

    A central purpose of journalism is the creation of an informed citizenry. And yet––especially in an environment of free-floating, ambient news––it’s not entirely clear what it means to be informed. In his book “The Good Citizen,” from 1998, Michael Schudson, a sociologist who now teaches at Columbia’s journalism school, argues that the ideal of the “informed citizen”––a person with the time, discipline, and expertise needed to steep him- or herself in politics and become fully engaged in our civic life––has always been an unrealistic one. The founders, he writes, expected citizens to possess relatively little political knowledge; the ideal of the informed citizen didn’t take hold until more than a century later, when Progressive-era reformers sought to rein in the party machines and empower individual voters to make thoughtful decisions. (It was also during this period that the independent press began to emerge as a commercial phenomenon, and the press corps became increasingly professionalized.)

    Schudson proposes a model for citizenship that he believes to be more true to life: the “monitorial citizen”—a person who is watchful of what’s going on in politics but isn’t always fully engaged. “The monitorial citizen engages in environmental surveillance more than information-gathering,” he writes. “Picture parents watching small children at the community pool. They are not gathering information; they are keeping an eye on the scene. They look inactive, but they are poised for action if action is required.” Schudson contends that monitorial citizens might even be “better informed than citizens of the past in that, somewhere in their heads, they have more bits of information.” When the time is right, they will deploy this information––to vote a corrupt lawmaker out of office, say, or to approve an important ballot measure.

    #Journalisme #Médias #Economie_attention

  • YouTube Executives Ignored Warnings, Let Toxic Videos Run Rampant - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-02/youtube-executives-ignored-warnings-letting-toxic-videos-run-rampant

    Wojcicki’s media behemoth, bent on overtaking television, is estimated to rake in sales of more than $16 billion a year. But on that day, Wojcicki compared her video site to a different kind of institution. “We’re really more like a library,” she said, staking out a familiar position as a defender of free speech. “There have always been controversies, if you look back at libraries.”

    Since Wojcicki took the stage, prominent conspiracy theories on the platform—including one on child vaccinations; another tying Hillary Clinton to a Satanic cult—have drawn the ire of lawmakers eager to regulate technology companies. And YouTube is, a year later, even more associated with the darker parts of the web.

    The conundrum isn’t just that videos questioning the moon landing or the efficacy of vaccines are on YouTube. The massive “library,” generated by users with little editorial oversight, is bound to have untrue nonsense. Instead, YouTube’s problem is that it allows the nonsense to flourish. And, in some cases, through its powerful artificial intelligence system, it even provides the fuel that lets it spread.

    Mais justement NON ! Ce ne peut être une “bibliothèque”, car une bibliothèque ne conserve que des documents qui ont été publiés, donc avec déjà une première instance de validation (ou en tout cas de responsabilité éditoriale... quelqu’un ira en procès le cas échéant).

    YouTube est... YouTube, quelque chose de spécial à internet, qui remplit une fonction majeure... et également un danger pour la pensée en raison de “l’économie de l’attention”.

    The company spent years chasing one business goal above others: “Engagement,” a measure of the views, time spent and interactions with online videos. Conversations with over twenty people who work at, or recently left, YouTube reveal a corporate leadership unable or unwilling to act on these internal alarms for fear of throttling engagement.

    In response to criticism about prioritizing growth over safety, Facebook Inc. has proposed a dramatic shift in its core product. YouTube still has struggled to explain any new corporate vision to the public and investors – and sometimes, to its own staff. Five senior personnel who left YouTube and Google in the last two years privately cited the platform’s inability to tame extreme, disturbing videos as the reason for their departure. Within Google, YouTube’s inability to fix its problems has remained a major gripe. Google shares slipped in late morning trading in New York on Tuesday, leaving them up 15 percent so far this year. Facebook stock has jumped more than 30 percent in 2019, after getting hammered last year.

    YouTube’s inertia was illuminated again after a deadly measles outbreak drew public attention to vaccinations conspiracies on social media several weeks ago. New data from Moonshot CVE, a London-based firm that studies extremism, found that fewer than twenty YouTube channels that have spread these lies reached over 170 million viewers, many who were then recommended other videos laden with conspiracy theories.

    So YouTube, then run by Google veteran Salar Kamangar, set a company-wide objective to reach one billion hours of viewing a day, and rewrote its recommendation engine to maximize for that goal. When Wojcicki took over, in 2014, YouTube was a third of the way to the goal, she recalled in investor John Doerr’s 2018 book Measure What Matters.

    “They thought it would break the internet! But it seemed to me that such a clear and measurable objective would energize people, and I cheered them on,” Wojcicki told Doerr. “The billion hours of daily watch time gave our tech people a North Star.” By October, 2016, YouTube hit its goal.

    YouTube doesn’t give an exact recipe for virality. But in the race to one billion hours, a formula emerged: Outrage equals attention. It’s one that people on the political fringes have easily exploited, said Brittan Heller, a fellow at Harvard University’s Carr Center. “They don’t know how the algorithm works,” she said. “But they do know that the more outrageous the content is, the more views.”

    People inside YouTube knew about this dynamic. Over the years, there were many tortured debates about what to do with troublesome videos—those that don’t violate its content policies and so remain on the site. Some software engineers have nicknamed the problem “bad virality.”

    Yonatan Zunger, a privacy engineer at Google, recalled a suggestion he made to YouTube staff before he left the company in 2016. He proposed a third tier: Videos that were allowed to stay on YouTube, but, because they were “close to the line” of the takedown policy, would be removed from recommendations. “Bad actors quickly get very good at understanding where the bright lines are and skating as close to those lines as possible,” Zunger said.

    His proposal, which went to the head of YouTube policy, was turned down. “I can say with a lot of confidence that they were deeply wrong,” he said.

    Rather than revamp its recommendation engine, YouTube doubled down. The neural network described in the 2016 research went into effect in YouTube recommendations starting in 2015. By the measures available, it has achieved its goal of keeping people on YouTube.

    “It’s an addiction engine,” said Francis Irving, a computer scientist who has written critically about YouTube’s AI system.

    Wojcicki and her lieutenants drew up a plan. YouTube called it Project Bean or, at times, “Boil The Ocean,” to indicate the enormity of the task. (Sometimes they called it BTO3 – a third dramatic overhaul for YouTube, after initiatives to boost mobile viewing and subscriptions.) The plan was to rewrite YouTube’s entire business model, according to three former senior staffers who worked on it.

    It centered on a way to pay creators that isn’t based on the ads their videos hosted. Instead, YouTube would pay on engagement—how many viewers watched a video and how long they watched. A special algorithm would pool incoming cash, then divvy it out to creators, even if no ads ran on their videos. The idea was to reward video stars shorted by the system, such as those making sex education and music videos, which marquee advertisers found too risqué to endorse.

    Coders at YouTube labored for at least a year to make the project workable. But company managers failed to appreciate how the project could backfire: paying based on engagement risked making its “bad virality” problem worse since it could have rewarded videos that achieved popularity achieved by outrage. One person involved said that the algorithms for doling out payments were tightly guarded. If it went into effect then, this person said, it’s likely that someone like Alex Jones—the Infowars creator and conspiracy theorist with a huge following on the site, before YouTube booted him last August—would have suddenly become one of the highest paid YouTube stars.

    In February of 2018, the video calling the Parkland shooting victims “crisis actors” went viral on YouTube’s trending page. Policy staff suggested soon after limiting recommendations on the page to vetted news sources. YouTube management rejected the proposal, according to a person with knowledge of the event. The person didn’t know the reasoning behind the rejection, but noted that YouTube was then intent on accelerating its viewing time for videos related to news.

    #YouTube #Economie_attention #Engagement #Viralité

  • Accros aux smartphones : six lanceurs d’alerte à écouter de toute urgence - Médias / Net - Télérama.fr
    https://www.telerama.fr/medias/accros-aux-smartphones-six-lanceurs-dalerte-a-ecouter-de-toute-urgence,n591

    “L’abus de smartphone rend-il idiot ?” est la question posée en “une” de “Télérama” cette semaine. Aux Etats-Unis, les lanceurs d’alerte issus de la Silicon Valley cherchent la meilleure façon de répondre à cette question. Et insistent sur le même message : face aux écrans, nous sommes tous vulnérables.

    En 2016, un ingénieur et designer de Google, Tristan Harris (31 ans à l’époque), décide de partager dans un serveur interne une longue note exprimant ses doutes à propos du travail mené par l’équipe qu’il dirige (et plus largement l’entreprise qui l’emploie). Spécialiste de l’ergonomie des alertes et notifications (ces signaux qui nous suivent partout depuis que nos téléphones portables sont devenus de ordinateurs mobiles), Harris considère que Google va désormais trop loin dans « la guerre à l’attention ».

    « Chers collègues (...) aider les gens à gérer leurs messageries, leurs sources d’info, très bien. Mais tout faire pour agripper leur attention en permanence, est-ce bien éthique ? » En 24 heures, sa note fait le tour de l’entreprise ; beaucoup chez Google pensent comme lui mais n’osent le dire… Depuis, Tristan Harris a fait beaucoup de choses. Il a démissionné. A donné une interview qui a marqué les esprits – pour l’émission 60 minutes en avril 2017 –, y comparant le rapport de millions d’utilisateurs à leur smartphone à celui des joueurs de casino face aux machines à sous et n’hésitant pas à parler de « brain hacking ».

    Puis il a lancé un groupe d’actions, The Center for Humane Technology, basé à San Francisco, dans le but d’alerter le grand public aux risques d’addiction aux écrans. Un combat porté par de plus en plus de voix aux Etats-Unis, parmi lesquels les six lanceurs d’alerte ici présentés.

    #Economie_attention #Ecologie_attention #Nudge #Smartphone

  • Partout, tout le temps : tous accros à nos smartphones ? - Le monde bouge - Télérama.fr
    https://www.telerama.fr/monde/partout,-tout-le-temps-tous-accros-a-nos-smartphones,n5908086.php

    Programmé pour capturer sans relâche notre attention, le téléphone connecté a bouleversé notre rapport au monde. Reportage à San Francisco, où des ingénieurs repentis tentent de lutter contre les addictions au tout petit écran.

    Son enfance, Aza Raskin l’a passée au milieu des circuits intégrés et des microprocesseurs – à la maison, il y en avait partout, dans le salon, le garage, la cuisine. La famille habite au sud de San Francisco, dans la Silicon Valley. Lorsque Aza vient au monde, en 1984, la réputation et la fortune de son père sont déjà faites : cinq ans plus tôt, Jef Raskin, ingénieur au sein d’une petite entreprise nommée Apple, a inventé rien de moins que l’ordinateur du futur, le Macintosh. « J’ai toujours entendu mon père dire que l’informatique, c’était la porte d’entrée vers une civilisation nouvelle, un gigantesque potentiel de bienfaits pour l’humanité, sourit l’ingénieur de 34 ans dans son lumineux bureau de Berkeley. Jef était quelqu’un d’enthousiaste, bondissant d’une idée à l’autre. Il se fichait d’avoir marqué l’histoire de l’ordinateur, il ne pensait qu’à l’avenir et à sa prochaine trouvaille. »
    Aza raskin, inventeur du “scroll” et repenti du Web

    Raskin junior est un pur produit de la Silicon Valley et du déterminisme social. A 10 ans, il maîtrise plusieurs langages informatiques. A 13, il crée des logiciels. A 22, multidiplômé, il entre chez Mozilla, qui s’apprête à lancer le système d’exploitation Firefox. « Je suis devenu “creative director”, c’est-à-dire le patron des designers, les gens qui vous donnent envie de cliquer sans réfléchir. J’ai fait ce travail avec passion, jus­qu’au moment où j’ai commencé à m’interroger sur la toute-puissance des outils à notre disposition. Sur le Web, le design est discret, mais c’est une arme de persuasion terriblement efficace : on peut vite rendre les gens passifs et dépendants. A un moment, je me suis dit que des jeunes geeks comme moi, majoritairement blancs et travaillant tous en Californie, avaient hérité d’un pouvoir démesuré et dangereux. Tout l’inverse des valeurs progressistes et partageuses inculquées par mon père. »

    #Economie_attention #Ecologie_attention #Nudge

  • Réseau sociaux : la lente dérive du web d’après Caterina Fake
    https://www.ladn.eu/tech-a-suivre/reseau-sociaux-lente-derive-web-caterina-fake

    CATERINA FAKE : Quand nous avons construit Flickr, la notion de communauté était importante. L’idée que les utilisateurs devaient contribuer et participer pour faire partie d’une communauté était vraiment une manière nouvelle de penser. On l’a oublié, mais ces services étaient souvent monétisés par des abonnements. Flickr, par exemple, faisait payer ses utilisateurs à partir d’un certain nombre de photos partagées. On est passé de ce système de communauté en ligne à un modèle de médias sociaux faussement gratuit. Plus qu’une évolution, il s’agit d’une dérive qui consiste à vendre à des publicitaires ou des gouvernements, les utilisateurs, leurs données et leur profil psychologique comme une simple marchandise. Même leurs opinions politiques et leur vote sont à vendre au plus offrant comme on a pu le voir avec le scandale Cambridge Analytica.

    On a vu disparaître l’esprit communautaire des débuts du Net au profit de la montée des discours de haine. Comment l’expliquez vous ?

    C. F. : Le point de vue libertarien qui a dominé la fabrication de ces plateformes a fortement joué dans la montée du trolling. Au lieu d’assumer leur responsabilité, les entrepreneurs ont préféré prétendre qu’ils n’étaient pas coupables du comportement de leurs utilisateurs. En réalité, ils ne managent pas leur audience parce qu’ils se voient comme des médias sociaux et non pas comme des communautés en ligne. Ce choix est programmé. On peut prendre au pied de la lettre ce que disait Lawrence Lessig - un juriste américain fondateur des Creative Commons : « Le code est la loi ». La loi, comme le code, crée la manière dont les gens interagissent les uns avec les autres. L’ancien responsable de la communauté de Flickr disait une chose très juste : « Ce que vous tolérez indique ce que vous êtes vraiment ». Donc si votre code tolère le sexisme, vous êtes une plateforme sexiste. Si votre code tolère les suprématistes blancs, vous êtes une plateforme qui soutient le suprématisme blanc.

    #Médias_sociaux #Economie_attention

  • affordance.info : « Le » numérique, la maman et la putain.
    http://affordance.typepad.com/mon_weblog/2018/09/les-jeunes-les-ecrans-youtube-les-ordinateurs-en-cours-toussa.ht
    http://www.affordance.info/.a/6a00d8341c622e53ef022ad3b41ce7200b-600wi

    par Olivier Ertzscheid

    La question centrale qui nous taraude à des niveaux divers en tant qu’enseignants, particulièrement à l’université, c’est celle de la meilleure articulation possible entre ces deux injonctions a priori contradictoires et ces deux postures disposant chacune d’arguments imparables sur la/les meilleure(s) manière(s) de réguler l’attention et sur celle(s) de la capter : comment peut-on justifier le fait de vouloir à la fois interdire l’usage d’internet dans les amphis et en même temps reconnaître l’importance de ce média dans les processus d’apprentissage et lui laisser une place de choix comme « ressource » dans les mêmes processus d’apprentissage ? Injonction contradictoire qui fonctionne aussi si vous remplacez « internet » par « ordinateurs » dans la phrase précédente.

    #Economie_attention #Education

  • On a testé… utiliser « Temps d’écran » pour réduire l’utilisation de son iPhone
    https://abonnes.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2018/09/25/on-a-teste-utiliser-temps-d-ecran-pour-reduire-l-utilisation-de-son- ?

    La fonctionnalité lancée par Apple sur iOS 12 a au moins un mérite : permettre d’identifier ses mauvaises habitudes face à une surutilisation de son smartphone.

    #Addiction #Culture_numérique #Economie_attention

  • Révisions : « Il faut s’immuniser contre les sollicitations des réseaux sociaux »
    http://abonnes.lemonde.fr/campus/article/2018/02/07/revisions-il-faut-s-immuniser-contre-les-sollicitations-des-reseaux-

    Les réseaux sociaux plébiscités par les étudiants (Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook) nuisent-ils plus particulièrement à la concentration ?

    Il y a une vraie compétition pour l’économie de l’attention. Ces réseaux sont conçus pour placer l’utilisateur en régime d’alerte permanent. Vous êtes toujours en prise avec un groupe, avec lequel vous vous devez socialement de réagir. Et cette réactivité est immé­diatement récompensée sur le plan social. Dans le cas d’un ­concours, l’étudiant doit réaliser qu’il investit sur le long terme en révisant et se placer dans une temporalité différente.

    Comment se couper intelligemment des réseaux ?

    Il ne faut pas devenir un ascète, mais savoir focaliser son attention et s’immuniser contre les sollicitations. D’autant plus quand on révise sur son ordi­nateur. On peut, par exemple, se connecter seulement deux heures, en fin de journée. C’est une autodiscipline à acquérir !

    #Economie_attention #Dominique_Boullier

  • Early Facebook and Google Employees Form Coalition to Fight What They Built - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/04/technology/early-facebook-google-employees-fight-tech.html

    SAN FRANCISCO — A group of Silicon Valley technologists who were early employees at Facebook and Google, alarmed over the ill effects of social networks and smartphones, are banding together to challenge the companies they helped build.

    The cohort is creating a union of concerned experts called the Center for Humane Technology. Along with the nonprofit media watchdog group Common Sense Media, it also plans an anti-tech addiction lobbying effort and an ad campaign at 55,000 public schools in the United States.

    The effect of technology, especially on younger minds, has become hotly debated in recent months. In January, two big Wall Street investors asked Apple to study the health effects of its products and to make it easier to limit children’s use of iPhones and iPads. Pediatric and mental health experts called on Facebook last week to abandon a messaging service the company had introduced for children as young as 6. Parenting groups have also sounded the alarm about YouTube Kids, a product aimed at children that sometimes features disturbing content.

    #Economie_attention #Addiction_technologique

  • Is the Answer to Phone Addiction a Worse Phone? - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/technology/grayscale-phone.html

    In an effort to break my smartphone addiction, I’ve joined a small group of people turning their phone screens to grayscale — cutting out the colors and going with a range of shades from white to black. First popularized by the tech ethicist Tristan Harris, the goal of sticking to shades of gray is to make the glittering screen a little less stimulating.

    I’ve been gray for a couple days, and it’s remarkable how well it has eased my twitchy phone checking, suggesting that one way to break phone attachment may be to, essentially, make my phone a little worse. We’re simple animals, excited by bright colors, it turns out.

    What going grayscale does, Mr. Ramsoy said, is reintroduce choice.

    Companies use colors to encourage subconscious decisions, Mr. Ramsoy said. (So that, for example, I may want to open email, but I’ll end up on Instagram, having seen its colorful button.) Making the phone gray eliminates that manipulation. Mr. Ramsoy said it reintroduces “controlled attention.”

    “Color’s not a signal for detecting objects, it’s actually something much more fundamental: it’s for telling us what’s likely to be important,” Mr. Conway said. “If you have lots of color and contrast then you’re under a constant state of attentional recruitment. Your attentional system is constantly going, ‘Look look look over here.’ ”

    #Economie_attention #Couleur #Design

  • Apple Investors Warn iPhones and Other Technology May Be Hurting Children - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/business/apple-investors-children.html

    Even those involved with designing such technologies have acknowledged their downside and potential for misuse.

    “There is a developing consensus around the world including Silicon Valley that the potential long-term consequences of new technologies need to be factored in at the outset, and no company can outsource that responsibility,” the investors wrote.

    The solution, they argued, is not to banish such devices from children’s hands, but to help parents help them understand how to use technology with care.

    To achieve that goal, they said, Apple should form a committee of experts, fund research, improve parental controls in its products, educate parents and regularly report on the company’s progress.

    Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    #Enfants #Economie_attention #Apple

  • Dominique Boullier : « Que visons-nous si ce n’est à capter de l’attention ? » - Le Courrier Picard
    http://www.courrier-picard.fr/82004/article/2018-01-07/dominique-boullier-que-visons-nous-si-ce-nest-capter-de-lattention
    http://cpena.rosselcdn.net/sites/default/files/dpistyles_v2/FirstImageUrl/2018/01/07/82004/3900783/public/2018/01/07/B9714307859Z.1_20180107153733_000%2BGH6AEDM46.1-0.jpg?itok=KI0h4R2x

    Chamath Palihapitiya, un ancien vice-président de Facebook en charge de la croissance de l’audience, n’est pas le premier à tirer la sonnette d’alarme. Pour lui, « les réseaux sociaux sapent les fondamentaux du comportement des gens. » Dominique Boullier, aujourd’hui chercheur à l’École polytechnique de Lausanne et spécialiste des technologies cognitive, a dirigé de 1998 à 2005 les travaux de recherches de l’équipe Costech de l’UTC de Compiègne, en lien avec les interfaces homme-machine. Il explique les changements qu’introduisent ces plateformes qui nous poussent à être sans cesse connectées.

    En quoi les réseaux sociaux transforment le tissu social en « jeu de miroir », pour reprendre votre expression ?

    Ils nous poussent à devenir les agences de pub de nous-mêmes, à toujours chercher à capter l’attention d’un public. La dimension de relation entre pairs, de transposition du réseau de copains, comme c’était le cas avec Myspace au début ou avec Cyworld en Corée (où toute la population était connectée) s’est effacée au profit de dispositifs d’édition de versions de soi. Que visons-nous dans cette publication si ce n’est à capter de l’attention (voire pour certains à générer du buzz) ? Dès lors, nous produisons l’image que nous supposons intéresser les autres pour être mieux évalués et attractifs : et les autres nous renvoient précisément leur évaluation de cette image à laquelle nous allons tendre à nous conformer. Eux-aussi agissent de la même façon et il tend à se créer des formats, des savoir-faire, des trucs pour assurer sa visibilité. Ces jeux de miroir ne font plus référence à qui que ce soit mais à un écho standard.

    Les réseaux sociaux seraient-ils un moyen pour les gestionnaires de compte de s’inventer une vie ?

    Oui un compte (qui n’est pas une personne) vit de sa propre vie et il faut lui l’inventer sans cesse. On peut donc avoir plusieurs comptes sur le même réseau social et sur plusieurs réseaux sociaux pour faire apparaître différentes facettes de soi. On apprend à gérer son image, et cela, c’est une contagion massive, qui n’est pas anodine car c’est ce qu’on demande en entreprise aussi où les marques, et l’image de marque sont devenues souvent plus importantes (au moins pour les investisseurs) que la performance technique ou commerciale traditionnelle.

    Sommes-nous en train de devenir des acteurs de notre propre vie ?

    Oui, acteurs au sens de la scène. Ce qui veut dire souvent de moins en moins acteurs au sens agissant ou ayant prise sur. Car plus nous apprenons qu’il faut plus faire savoir que savoir faire, plus nous devenons captifs de cette mise en scène. Sans oublier que cela demande beaucoup de travail, de constance, de mobilisation, pour seulement maintenir une image, une réputation. On apprend cela aussi quand dans les écoles on apprend à se vendre, à se construire un CV, à construire son réseau sur Linkedin. Car toute une génération sait désormais que ce ne sont pas ses compétences intrinsèques qui la feront reconnaître mais leur mise en scène et en réseau dans les bons formats et au bon moment (d’où le coaching, le savoir pitcher, etc. qui devient plus important que les compétences intrinsèques).

    Quels en sont les impacts au niveau sanitaire et neurologique ?

    L’impact essentiel tient à la mobilisation constante que cela suppose. J’appelle cela un régime d’alerte permanente, à travers les notifications, les réactions à nos posts, les notations, et la réactivité qui nous est demandée. Cette attention valorise l’intensité au détriment de la durée : il faut être capable de passer d’un sujet à l’autre, d’un réseau à l’autre. L’équipe Costech de l’Université de Technologie de Compiègne avait appelé cela aussi le syndrome de saturation cognitive, qui veut dire non pas un grand volume d’information mais un hachage de l’attention. De fait certains arrivent à gérer plusieurs tâches à la fois (la multiactivité) mais à un certain moment cela ne peut que détériorer certaines capacités cognitives qui sont moins entraînées, notamment celles qui mobilisent le cerveau 2 comme le dit Kahneman, celui qui réfléchit et non celui qui réagit (cerveau 1). De plus, ce stress, peut passer d’un effet d’excitation (sensation d’être partout à la fois, d’être au cœur de la vibration du monde) à un effet dépressif d’incapacité à suivre le rythme, voire de sentiment de perte de sens, ce qui se traduit par des abandons des réseaux sociaux, de plus en plus fréquents.

    Vous dites que de plus en plus de gens quittent les réseaux sociaux… existe-t-il un burnout des réseaux sociaux ?

    Il faut bien comprendre que la spirale de l’alerte, de la promotion de soi est épuisante car il n’existe pas d’indicateur fiable pour se réguler. Les plates-formes vous encouragent toujours plus à être réactifs, à commenter, à retwitter (avec un bouton qui a été inventé en 2011 et qui a accéléré le phénomène de façon immédiate), à faire des amis, à réagir, etc. Quand on n’apprend pas à se réguler et qu’on n’y est pas incité, on tend à fonctionner en tout ou rien comme les grands addicts (pas une goutte d’alcool, pas un joint, etc.). Il est donc nécessaire de proposer des architectures de choix, qui permettent de réguler nos propres tendances ou celles qu’on nous suscite, avec des rythmes ou des méthodes pour faire baisser le stress, et retrouver goût aux autres dimensions de la vie. Sans pour autant tout couper.

    Propos recueillis par Anne Kanaan

    #Médias_sociaux #Dominique_Boullier #Economie_attention #Pratiques_sociales #Epuisement

  • Silicon Valley Is Not Your Friend - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/13/opinion/sunday/Silicon-Valley-Is-Not-Your-Friend.html

    These menacing turns of events have been quite bewildering to the public, running counter to everything Silicon Valley had preached about itself. Google, for example, says its purpose is “to organize the world’s information, making it universally accessible and useful,” a quest that could describe your local library as much as a Fortune 500 company. Similarly, Facebook aims to “give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” Even Amazon looked outside itself for fulfillment by seeking to become, in the words of its founder, Jeff Bezos, “the most customer-obsessed company to ever occupy planet Earth.”

    Almost from its inception, the World Wide Web produced public anxiety — your computer was joined to a network that was beyond your ken and could send worms, viruses and trackers your way — but we nonetheless were inclined to give these earnest innovators the benefit of the doubt. They were on our side in making the web safe and useful, and thus it became easy to interpret each misstep as an unfortunate accident on the path to digital utopia rather than as subterfuge meant to ensure world domination.

    Now that Google, Facebook, Amazon have become world dominators, the questions of the hour are, can the public be convinced to see Silicon Valley as the wrecking ball that it is? And do we still have the regulatory tools and social cohesion to restrain the monopolists before they smash the foundations of our society?

    Une anecdote intéressante :

    Once Mr. Brin, Mr. Page and Mr. Zuckerberg reversed course on pursuing profits, they reported an odd thing — the public didn’t seem to care. “Do you know the most common feedback, honestly?” Mr. Brin said in 2002 when asked about the reaction to Google’s embrace of advertising. “It’s ‘What ads?’ People either haven’t done searches that bring them up or haven’t noticed them. Or the third possibility is that they brought up the ads and they did notice them and they forgot about them, which I think is the most likely scenario.”

    Et une excellente citation de John MacCarthy

    John McCarthy, the computer-science pioneer who nurtured the first hackers at M.I.T. and later ran Stanford’s artificial intelligence lab, worried that programmers didn’t understand their responsibilities. “Computers will end up with the psychology that is convenient to their designers (and they’ll be fascist bastards if those designers don’t think twice),” he wrote in 1983. “Program designers have a tendency to think of the users as idiots who need to be controlled. They should rather think of their program as a servant, whose master, the user, should be able to control it.”

    Facebook conçu pour attirer 10 mais afin d’avoir assez de matériau pour inciter l’usager à revenir

    As Mr. Weizenbaum feared, the current tech leaders have discovered that people trust computers and have licked their lips at the possibilities. The examples of Silicon Valley manipulation are too legion to list: push notifications, surge pricing, recommended friends, suggested films, people who bought this also bought that. Early on, Facebook realized there was a hurdle to getting people to stay logged on. “We came upon this magic number that you needed to find 10 friends,” Mr. Zuckerberg recalled in 2011. “And once you had 10 friends, you had enough content in your newsfeed that there would just be stuff on a good enough interval where it would be worth coming back to the site.” Facebook would design its site for new arrivals so that it was all about finding people to “friend.”

    The 10 friends rule is an example of a favored manipulation of tech companies, the network effect. People will use your service — as lame as it may be — if others use your service. This was tautological reasoning that nonetheless proved true: If everyone is on Facebook, then everyone is on Facebook. You need to do whatever it takes to keep people logging in, and if rivals emerge, they must be crushed or, if stubbornly resilient, acquired.

    As is becoming obvious, these companies do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. We need greater regulation, even if it impedes the introduction of new services. If we can’t stop their proposals — if we can’t say that driverless cars may not be a worthy goal, to give just one example — then are we in control of our society? We need to break up these online monopolies because if a few people make the decisions about how we communicate, shop, learn the news, again, do we control our own society?

    #Silicon_valley #Cyberlibertariens #Google #Facebook #Economie_attention #Médias_sociaux

  • Publication de notre livre : « Le Web Affectif : une économie numérique des émotions » | CaddE-Réputation
    https://cadderep.hypotheses.org/293

    Nous nous sommes alors interrogés sur les nombreux discours mettant en avant la performance de l’analyse et de l’activation des émotions via des dispositifs numériques pour : développer l’expérience utilisateur, affiner le ciblage des publics, personnaliser les interfaces et bien entendu attirer et orienter l’attention. Le point central de nos réflexions est suite à cela le suivant : les « émotions » ne peuvent être quantifiées ou activées, mais pour autant nous glissons d’une économie de l’attention vers une économie de l’impulsion. Autrement dit, le but des plateformes et de leurs annonceurs n’est plus (seulement) de nous faire lire/voir, mais de nous faire (ré)agir/ressentir.

    Par la suite, nos recherches nous ont amené à constater, via notamment le test de différentes applications, que ce n’était pas réellement des émotions qui étaient ainsi mesurées. Mais alors, pourquoi jouer sur ces leviers ? Pour produire un effet, une impulsion. La notion d’affect nous permet ainsi, de manière conceptuelle, d’agencer les différents discours, signes (likes, emojis, etc.), technologies autours d’un possible objectif : faire circuler en ligne ce qui nous affects afin de nous mettre en mouvement, de produire des effets sur nos représentations, notre intime, nos gestes voire nos corps eux-mêmes.

    Tiens, un livre que j’achète illico... dans une excellente collection de l’INA.

    #Emotions #Economie_attention #Digital_labor #Emojis

  • LesInrocks - Mais pourquoi l’écrivaine Angot se donne-t-elle ainsi en spectacle ?
    http://www.lesinrocks.com/2017/10/03/idees/mais-pourquoi-lecrivain-angot-se-donne-t-elle-ainsi-en-spectacle-1199274

    L’attention, nouvelle monnaie de l’échange universel

    Ce concept de “spectacularisation“ est évidemment loin d’être inédit. Comme Vincent Kaufmann le sait lui-même, pour avoir écrit récemment une biographie intellectuelle de Guy Debord, l’auteur de La Société du spectacle il y a déjà cinquante ans, en 1967, le spectacle impose sa loi d’airain à la société marchande et culturelle depuis longtemps. Mais ce que ce professeur de littérature et d’histoire des médias en Suisse éclaire ici, c’est la façon dont le spectacle lui-même s’est transformé ces dernières années (téléréalité, réseaux sociaux…), et a mécaniquement affecté la parole des écrivains. “Dans un contexte d’inflation médiatique où l’attention et la visibilité sont devenues les denrées les plus précieuses, il n’est plus certain qu’on puisse être auteur comme on l’était autrefois“, observe même Vincent Kaufmann.

    Le spectacle est d’ailleurs devenu lui-même autonome. “Il ne soumet plus nécessairement les individus à la loi de la marchandise, mais à son propre ordre, celui de l’attention, devenue elle-même la principale marchandise ou même la nouvelle monnaie de l’échange universel.”

    #Spectacle #Economie_attention

  • Facebook Enabled Advertisers to Reach ‘Jew Haters’ — ProPublica
    https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters

    Want to market Nazi memorabilia, or recruit marchers for a far-right rally? Facebook’s self-service ad-buying platform had the right audience for you.

    Until this week, when we asked Facebook about it, the world’s largest social network enabled advertisers to direct their pitches to the news feeds of almost 2,300 people who expressed interest in the topics of “Jew hater,” “How to burn jews,” or, “History of ‘why jews ruin the world.’”

    To test if these ad categories were real, we paid $30 to target those groups with three “promoted posts” — in which a ProPublica article or post was displayed in their news feeds. Facebook approved all three ads within 15 minutes.

    There are times where content is surfaced on our platform that violates our standards,” said Rob Leathern, product management director at Facebook. “In this case, we’ve removed the associated targeting fields in question. We know we have more work to do, so we’re also building new guardrails in our product and review processes to prevent other issues like this from happening in the future.”

    Facebook’s advertising has become a focus of national attention since it disclosed last week that it had discovered $100,000 worth of ads placed during the 2016 presidential election season by “inauthentic” accounts that appeared to be affiliated with Russia.

    Like many tech companies, Facebook has long taken a hands off approach to its advertising business. Unlike traditional media companies that select the audiences they offer advertisers, Facebook generates its ad categories automatically based both on what users explicitly share with Facebook and what they implicitly convey through their online activity.

    Traditionally, tech companies have contended that it’s not their role to censor the Internet or to discourage legitimate political expression. In the wake of the violent protests in Charlottesville by right-wing groups that included self-described Nazis, Facebook and other tech companies vowed to strengthen their monitoring of hate speech.

    #Economie_attention #Industrie_influence #Fake_news #Facebook