A proposed bill would force tech companies to tell users how much their data is worth. But how can a single number capture data’s power to predict your actions or sway your decisions?
Tech giants like Facebook are at risk of joining the ranks of Compuserve and MCI Mail to be replaced with the next generation of organizing designed for new models of distributed trust.
Companies scrutinise our online likes, dislikes, searches and purchases to produce data that can be used commercially. And it’s often done without us understanding the full extent of the surveillance.
Big tech companies compete over who can gather the most intelligence on their users. Countries like Russia and China turn this information against their citizens.
The Uber driver walkout raises questions about how workers can fight for better pay and benefits in the age of the gig economy – a topic frequently on the minds of Conversation scholars.
Google, Amazon and other powerful groups are renaming American cities and neighborhoods. That may make the area more appealing to newcomers – but, in many cases, residents aren’t happy.
Google+ is the latest online community to shut down, forcing users to seek other options. So why are organisations pulling away from user-generated content such as reviews, comments and debates?
Feelgood, high-level data ethics principles are not fit for the purpose of regulating big tech. Applied ethics might be useful … but stronger regulation is the preferred end goal.
After Google suggested PigeonRank was at the root of its search function, a group of researchers put a small flock of the birds to a different classification test in real life.