General – Page 3 – Learning Aloud

Ranked imperfect actions to fix big tech

I recently listened to part of the Senate hearing focused on Big Tech and online child abuse. While recognizing multiple complaints, many legitimate, focused on Big Tech, I am beginning to have a small level of annoyance with the political committees. My reaction to the committee attitude is often – OK, you have identified a problem. You don’t seem to have a solution you want to put forward in legislation beyond complaining about Big Tech and expecting them to come up with a solution. I am not a fan of large technology companies but the situation always seems complicated to me with conflicting values generating complaints and accusations. Since I assume Congress can impose regulations, I want to see the specific solutions they threaten to impose and give everyone a chance to react.

The following is a challenge I sometimes give myself. Here is the problem. I understand some of the issues and ask myself what would I have Congress require. Then, I try to consider what the consequences would be and what complaints would be advanced. I have come up with an ordered list of my recommendations, but first I want to identify some of the common counter-arguments I have considered.

Challenges that are barriers to many potential solutions:

Big is necessary for many services. The most obvious example I can think of would be AI. I know that even major universities cannot independently develop and evaluate the powerful models of big tech companies because of the cost. University researchers do have a more independent view I would like to see in important conversations but doing research and development is difficult. Mandated regulations are easier for big companies to satisfy limiting important competition. Added responsibilities are easier for existing companies with a large user base and solid revenue to address added requirements. Fear of legal action is also more threatening to a company without the cash flow to hire legal counsel and the funds to pay penalties.
I see anonymity as a problem because it allows big tech to be blamed for the behavior of bad actors. Rather than going directly after bad actors demands are made of the platforms the bad actors use. This is the issue addressed by Section 230, but 230 is under attack. Anonymity is defended because it is argued some users need to have their identities protected – children with personal concerns that their parents reject, women hiding from abusive partners, citizens living under oppressive rulers, etc.
Free speech and who gets to interpret what free speech allows is a concern. Given how some politicians use the free speech argument to defend their own behavior trying to regulate harassment and bullying among citizens seems to be problematic. If teens call a peer fat is that free speech?
What would actually change? dana boyd (Microsoft researcher and expert on online adolescent behavior) makes the following argument concerning how politicians see many problems. She contends that most problems have multiple causes with online behavior being one. She argues that the nature of our culture creates an environment such that whatever would be done about Big Tech would result in very little change in the challenges of adolescence.
We as a society become locked into a model we mistakenly understand to be free. We are wrong because we pay for many online services by our assumed attention to ads, but it is the perception of free that is the problem.
Equity – those able to pay for services are less vulnerable in that we can exercise greater control over known threats.

I do not claim that my ordered list of possible actions resolves what I think of as conflicting challenges, but I wanted to recognize these challenges that must be recognized. You may have others you would add to the list.

What I mean by an ordered list is that unless items at the top of the list are addressed, items lower on the list will either be difficult to implement or implementation will be less effective.

I am going to try to present items on my ordered list using a specific structure. In some cases, this is more challenging than in others. I first intend to present a problem, then identify a mechanism that enables the problem (flaw), and finally propose a concrete action that could be taken.

Problem One – lack of competition limiting options that could be based on what users believe to address a personal need. Flaw – the network effect locks individuals into an inferior service because that is where colleagues are. Solution – depending on the service politicians could require that interoperability and easy movement of personal data be provided.

Note: Cory Doctorow makes the argument that many of the nation’s problems will not likely be addressed without better knowledge and communication. I am simply extending his argument to suggest that until online participants have options that address their personal needs and concerns meaningful change will be far less likely. Interoperability and easy movement of data are practical ways to challenge the perception of being locked in.

Problem Two – Collection of personal information. Flaw – the revenue model of big tech is largely based on the collection of personal information to allow targeted ads and communication. Companies pay far more for personalized rather than random access and this higher revenue is what allows for the infrastructure, research and development, high salaries and return to investors necessary to maintain big tech. Solution – the best solution would be to deny or limit the collection of personal information. Making third-party cookies illegal would be helpful, but denying the use of ads and forcing a subscription-based revenue approach would be a better solution. Ad blocking at present is a gray ethical area as it provides no alternative to support work. Moving the financial model to subscriptions would be ideal. Requiring companies to provide ad-supported and ad-free options makes some sense, but presents an equity issue in that more vulnerable people would likely accept what would be an objectionable situation. BTW – my selection of my first priority was related to the equity issue and the importance of meaningful alternatives.

3. Problem – big is necessary for R&D. Flaw – the R&D function of higher education does not allow the budget to contribute to many of the issues now addressed by big tech. Solution – Fund a competitive consortium of higher ed institutions to focus on R&D issues ignored by big tech and evaluate strategies used by big tech for consequences that may be damaging.

4. Problem – holding tech companies accountable for the actions of anonymous bad actors that use tech platforms. Flaw – individuals responsible for actions cannot be identified because of anonymity. Solution – require verification of identity for use. Companies could maintain this information and release it when required by authorities. Issues – increased cost and time, distrust of those who control and access identify data.

5. Problem – online services are addictive increasing dependency even when experiences are negative. Flaw – companies are motivated to increase the amount of use to show more ads. Solution – eliminate easy sources of reward (likes, shares) in favor of more effortful reactions (comments). Note – moving to a subscription model would remove the incentive for showing more ads – see problem 2.

So this is my list. I think what I propose is concrete and that is important in comparison to blaming and failure to define actual options. I invite others to react and to generate concrete actions they think could be implemented.

*****

Like many focused on educational uses of technology, I spend some time exploring AI applications. When sharing AI-generated content, I intend to differentiate what I have written from what I have used AI to create.

I asked ChatGPT to comment on the advantages and disadvantages using moving from ad-supported content and services to a subscription model. I thought the response was worth sharing.

The shift towards subscription models over targeted advertising is a transformative approach that promises a host of benefits, albeit with some trade-offs. Here’s a balanced view on how requiring a subscription instead of relying on targeted ads could shape the future of content consumption, user privacy, and business models.

Pros:

Enhanced Privacy and Security: The most significant advantage of a subscription-based model is the protection of user privacy. Targeted advertising relies on collecting vast amounts of personal data to tailor ads, raising concerns about data misuse and privacy breaches. A subscription model eliminates the need for data harvesting for advertising purposes, thereby enhancing user privacy and reducing the risk of data breaches.
Improved User Experience: Subscriptions can lead to a cleaner, more enjoyable user experience, free from the clutter and intrusion of targeted ads. This can increase user satisfaction and engagement, as content is no longer interrupted by irrelevant or annoying advertisements.
Predictable Revenue Streams: For content creators and platforms, subscriptions provide a stable, predictable source of revenue. This can be especially beneficial for smaller creators or niche platforms, which might struggle to attract advertising dollars but have a dedicated user base willing to pay for quality content.
Encourages Quality Content: A subscription model incentivizes the creation of high-quality, valuable content. Since revenue is directly tied to user satisfaction and willingness to pay, there is a stronger focus on producing content that meets or exceeds user expectations.

Cons:

Barrier to Entry: A subscription fee can act as a barrier to entry, potentially alienating users who are unwilling or unable to pay. This could limit the audience size, particularly in markets where consumers are accustomed to free content supported by ads.
Subscription Fatigue: As more platforms adopt subscription models, users may experience subscription fatigue, feeling overwhelmed by the number of subscriptions they need to manage and pay for. This could lead to a churn rate increase as users prioritize their subscriptions based on value and budget constraints.
Reduced Reach for Advertisers: For advertisers, subscription models mean reduced access to potential customers. Targeted advertising allows brands to reach specific demographics with precision, but a subscription model limits this reach, potentially impacting sales and marketing strategies.
Financial Risk for Creators: Switching to a subscription model presents financial risks, especially if the existing audience is not willing to convert from free to paid content. This could lead to a temporary or permanent dip in revenue during the transition period.

In conclusion, while the shift towards subscription models offers promising solutions to many concerns associated with targeted advertising, it is not without its challenges. Balancing user privacy, content quality, and financial sustainability will be key to successfully implementing this model.

New Project

I am trying something different with one of my longer writing projects.. My wife and I had a 15 year run with a commercial textbook for the “technology for teachers” undergraduate teacher preparation course. Fifteen years translates as 5 editions of the book. This course does not generate the review of a large lecture course (e.g., Introduction to Psychology), but there is less competition in the area of our book and we did well financially.

As we gained a lot of experience allowing us to analyze the textbook industry and the niche in which we published, we became very aware of the backlash against textbook costs (ours sold for $140 to students) and began to identify issues a traditional textbook for this niche could not address.

We came up with a plan to publish a much shorter version we called a Primer and wanted to match this with online resources. We proposed a $29 Primer and intended to serve the online content ourselves. I still think some of our arguments for this approach make sense. For example, those intending to teach high school and early elementary have very different interests in what to do with technology. Why not provide the basics in a Primer and then a larger variety of content for specific content areas and grade levels online? Technology is a field that moves quickly and keeping content current is a tremendous challenge. Not only did we publish once every three years, but 9-12 months were set aside to generate the next edition. You see the time lag that is created. Why not write online continually to keep a given textbook current?

Textbook companies think differently about their relationship with the authors they hire. A proposal such as paying someone to write continuously does not make sense to them even though they might appreciate the issue of keeping content current. They typically have a couple of books in a niche and their field reps encourage the adoption of the most recent book in a niche. This is more because of the used book market than the issue of currency and the issue of a general approach rather than what would be best for a given book is the perspective they take. At the time (this has changed since), combining online content with a physical product was also a foreign idea that did not translate as easily into income.

Anyway, we agreed to go our separate ways and were given our copyright back so we could pursue our interests with another company or with an outlet such as Kindle.

We continue to offer a version of this textbook through Amazon. I developed a second resource (Layering for learning) which was not really a full-length textbook, but concentrated on specific online services I proposed educators could use to make more effective use of web pages and online videos. It is this second “book” that I have decided to take in a different direction.

My professional writing activities have long been mostly a hobby. We made our money on our original textbook, but now my work is mostly about exploring topics in online publishing. Instead of $140, the online textbook sells for $9. Same basic book. I think it appropriate content that takes considerable time to create be treated as having value and I have always require some payment for my professional work even if mostly symbolic. So, what other outlet and approach can I explore as an alternative to Amazon?

Here is my new project. I am updating my layering book and serializing it on Medium. If you have not used Medium directly, you may have encountered work offered on Medium through a search engine. Sometimes you could read what the search engine found and sometimes you may have found that the content was behind a paywall. There are two competitors in this space – Substack and Medium. With Substack, if an author wants to be compensated for her work, she requires readers to subscribe to her work for a price. A reader makes a specific commitment (usually $5 a month or so) to specific authors. With Medium, you pay a subscription fee ($50 a year) and then read whatever you want from as many authors as you want. Medium takes a cut and then allocates the rest to the authors based on several variables they use to define value. Like other social outlets for the vast majority of writers, you receive little money (I hope to make enough to cover my own Medium subscription fee). I think of it as a way to keep score. Do people find what I write interesting and of value? What are the options for those who generate the kind of content I create and how do different options compare?

If you are not a Medium users, I think you are allowed three free reads a month and the Introduction to my serialized book is explained in greater detail.

To Win the War, Defeat Hamas and Stop Settlements

I write this post in response to comments made during last evening’s Republican debate during which several participants were very negative in response to the discussions on the Israeli/Palestinian situation occurring on many college campuses. The tone advocated that university officials shut down students voicing their concerns that the military actions of the Israelis were indiscriminately killing a large number of Palestinians innocent of any aggression toward Palestinians and voicing recognition of the abuses the Israelis had visited upon those of other faiths in the West Bank and the region. Of specific concern in these vocalizations has been the complicity of leader Netanyahu in using the support of leaders of Israeli extremists in order to gain political power. I support this concern of the students and see little hope for the region unless the overreach of all extremists in the region are not eliminated.

I think students are idealistic and see the hypocrisy in the positions taken by many politicians. Whether these politicians see their position as pragmatic or not is not the issue for me. Pragmatism can easily become a way to ignore legitimate complexity that is acknowledged by others. You do not have to condone atrocities to understand that people placed in impossible life circumstances are easier to convince they have no choice other than to resort to violence. My point is that the students recognize that simplifying a complex situation to justify a given response is unlikely to have long-term success.

In reacting to the simplicity of the Republican candidates in reacting to the present world situation, I happened to read an NYTimes piece by opinion writer Thomas Friedman. Thomas Friedman is one of the few authors who generates content I find so valuable that I purchase any book he writes. This interest goes back many years. I have found his commentary on globalization, climate, and education very insightful. Before these topics were integrated in what I think of his “World is Flat” books, I read his books about what I have always called the Middle East and I believe this area of the world and his experiences covering issues related to this region established him during his early career. One can find posts on this blog going back many years based on my reading of one Friedman book or another.

Friedman’s argument seems to me to encapsulate the position of the students and reflects a more nuanced and I would suggest an informed analysis of the crisis. His position seems captured in his title – To Win the War, Defeat Hamas and Stop Settlements [I think this link should work whether or not you have a digital subscription to the NYTimes]. I think of this argument as suggesting that to solve a problem of this nature you need to assure all participants that you are willing to put yourself in the position of taking the moral high ground. The crisis will not go away until there is a legitimate two-state solution and the extremists in Israel recognize and eliminate their abuse and aggression toward others who have legitimate rights to exist in the region. This is not a matter of determining which side has committed the most egregious acts, this is a matter of suggesting that wrongs exist on both sides and conflict will continue and be defended by one side as long as this is the case.

Patagonia

I haven’t posted in a while and it will be a while until I post again. I did not want people to think I had abandoned my blog. We are on an expidition cruise ship exploring Patagonia.

I have a separate blog for our travels and if you are interested I would invite you to take a look. My wife and I are heavy tech users no matter the activities we are engaged in and you may find things you will enjoy.

The following is the Pios XI glacier in Chile and the video shows the glacier calving.

The Power of Collaboration: Enhancing Your Note-Taking Experience

This post is intended to be the final contribution in my series of posts describing generative activities and classroom applications. My previous contributions identified two hierarchical systems, SOI (selective, organizing, integrative) and ICAP (interactive, constructive, active, passive), proposing more and less powerful activities for influencing learning effectiveness. Both systems propose collaborative activities to be potentially most effective. Several of my posts have concerned how taking notes can improve achievement so I decided to conclude this series with a focus on collaborative notetaking.

Before I address the topic of collaboration, it may be helpful to provide a more general background on how educational psychologists and researchers such as me describe the process of taking notes. First, we differentiate the overall process into a storage and a retrieval phase. I assume this is obvious. A learner takes notes at one time to improve performance of some type at a later time. Second, we identify what might be accomplished during each stage. What is recorded during the storage phase determines what is available during the retrieval (study) phase. Learners may differ in how completely and how effectively they record key ideas so both completeness and quality of what is recorded could be important. The idea of a generative activity also proposes that the process of taking notes (whether available for review or not) might be helpful because of the cognitive activities that are involved. By extension, an instructor could prepare a quality set of notes and give them to students so they don’t have to take notes themselves. It matters if having personally taken notes is key to effectiveness. So attempts to determine if taking notes yourself has some unique value are useful.

Again, the importance of a retrieval and a study phase probably seems obvious. But again, there are important wrinkles that could be important. Does it matter if you review your own notes in comparison to expert notes? When in the time period between taking notes and the attempt to use knowledge should notes be reviewed? How many times and in what ways should this external record be used for review?

How might collaboration impact these processes? Some of the ways in which collaboration might modify notetaking are generative and some not. Collaboration could mean that others record notes you miss or record some things more accurately than you and access to their notes would allow you to achieve a more complete and a more accurate representation of the content. Maybe you just miss some things or misunderstand some things. When you have help, maybe you can record less and think more during the reception phase reducing the working memory demands of taking notes. These factors could be important if you don’t “slack off” knowing that you have some way to augment your own optimal efforts. These advantages are not generative. Collaboration could also involve actual interaction. Learners could discuss their understanding in reviewing their composite notes adding additional processing to what individuals might do on their own. This is what generative notetaking really proposes.

There are lots of other variations in notetaking that might be important and could be beneficial or harmful. There are postprocessing variations other than talking through notes with other students. Some systems (e.g., Cornell notes) propose a system of postprocessing?—?a secondary process of commenting on notes. Other ways of working with notes taken (Smart notes) also can be applied as part of the retrieval/study stage.

Another interesting proposal challenges the way we tend to think about taking in information during a live lecture. With asynchronous presentations that were increasingly common during the pandemic and also a way to think about the advantages of a flipped classroom, content is experienced in a recorded format. A learner or a small group of learners can control the pace of the presentation by simply stopping the playback of a video or even repeating segments of a recording reducing the working memory and note creation challenges of keeping up. With recorded content, a small group of students can even discuss as they record notes making the process more generative.

I have several motives in presenting notetaking in this way. First, I wanted those who think the processes are simple and fixed to think again. Second, I wanted to set you up for arguing that while determining if collaboration helps or not is pretty straightforward, understanding why what is observed in a dependent variable is not obvious. For example, if collaboration improves achievement, does this happen because the combination of notes is more complete and accurate or because the process of students working together led to some unique processing that would not have occurred without the interaction. Some have even observed that collaboration led to better quiz performance, but poorer implementation of the skills being taught (Fanguy, et al. 2021). These authors argued that the processing required of individual learners varied as a function of whether they had to depend entirely on their own notes. Deep understanding required for application might suffer when responsibility was shared.

I have concluded based on a review of most of the studies on collaborative notetaking that teasing apart the potential benefits does not presently allow clear conclusions. The core problem is that it is difficult to document how much actual interaction occurs and what are the characteristics of such interactions. Fanguy, et al. (2023) offer some interesting suggestions for how interaction might be operationalized, but few studies have included such data. So while studies do demonstrate the positive impact of collaborative notes (e.g. Baldwin, et al. 2019), the mechanisms responsible are unclear.

One additional factor is likely quite significant. Group comparisons between individual and collaborative notetaking ignore the individual nature of contributions within the collaborative groups (Fanguy, et al., 2023). No matter the nature of the inputs, we all learn as individuals and without a mechanism for identifying the type and extent of individual involvement, group comparisons will always be somewhat deficient. Even if group differences can be demonstrated, some within a group may benefit and some may not. The typical ending for many research articles?—?more research is needed?—?clearly applies to this topic.

One final point, I can and will suggest several digital collaborative tools for those of you who are interested, but I also caution that it is important to understand the purpose and hence perhaps the the strategies of notetaking that are to be recommended. As an academic, I studied student notetaking as would be applied to improve performance on future examinations. In my own work as an academic, I was and continue to be interested in the way I can take notes myself. There are several important differences in these circumstances. A student needs to understand the priorities of the course and instructor as would be relevant to an upcoming examination or writing project to take the most useful notes. Complete notes when requirements are unknown would seem a reasonable goal. My own goals are more self-imposed, but also are to record information that would potentially be useful over a much longer span of time. Capturing what seem to be important ideas in a form that will make sense to me several years in the future seems a different task.

Recommendations:

Google docs?—?collaborative notetaking may work with tools already familiar to educators. Multiple studies I have reviewed were conducted by assigning small groups of students (say 4–5) to a common Google doc file.

Hypothes.is?—?Hypothesis is a free tool that has been around for a while and is increasingly integrated into many LMSs used in higher ed. The tool is flexible allowing annotations and highlights to be publicly shared or shared with a designated group.

Glasp?—?Glasp is a recent entry to this category and is the tool I use for my own work. I like the tool because it is flexible in ways similar to Hypothesis and allows me to export the content I generate for long-term use in other Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) systems.

References:

Baldwin Matthew, P., Mik, F., & Costley Jamie, H. (2019). The effects of collaborative note-taking in flipped learning contexts. Journal of Language and Education, (4), 20.

Fanguy, M., Baldwin, M., Shmeleva, E., Lee, K., & Costley, J. (2021). How collaboration influences the effect of note-taking on writing performance and recall of contents. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15.

Fanguy, M., Costley, J., Courtney, M., & Lee, K. (2023). Analyzing collaborative note-taking behaviors and their relationship with student learning through the collaborative encoding-storage paradigm. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15.

I have a Threads account

I admit it. I have a Threads account.

Yes, I have a Threads account. I also have a Twitter account and Mastodon accounts on several different instances. When I am in an idealistic mood, I would describe this assortment of social services as an effort to diversify my attention and support multiple platforms. I think it is valuable to have alternatives both for myself and others. If I were forced to pick one, my choice would probably be Mastodon. Mastodon is a federated service without commercial priorities that allow me to interact without requiring me to view ads that require the collection of my data.

When I think about my priorities in a more utilitarian way, I recognize I must also make use of Twitter and now Threads. One use I have for these social platforms is to attract attention to my blog posts. Twitter has a large population base and Threads will likely soon have the same. Many internet users no longer follow blogs using RSS and identify posts that might want to view from the content they encounter on social sites. A federated service allows users to identify an ideal instance that tends to fit their personal interests and values and find content on other instances by identifying specific individuals they happen to encounter. The process is cumbersome requiring some skill and time. My approach ends up being a compromise allowing both my personal values and the utility of the more undifferentiated sites.

Is the online revenue model shifting?

I was listening to a recent podcast episode (This week in tech) that featured an interview with Reddit app Apollo developer Christian Selig (this is the first portion of the podcast should you want to listen) and he described his decision to abandon his popular app for using Reddit because of soon to be imposed cost increases to developers whose software makes use of the Reddit API. The rebellion of multiple Reddit subreddits has been in the news and this interview helped me understand what is going on. The interview also made me think about the issue of revenue generation and those who are users and also content generators in the social media environment. Selig offers a realistic and appreciative interpretation of the rate increase imposed by Reddit, but in describing his decision to shut down his own participation he offers insights into a system that is failing. The “free to use” mentality appears to be breaking potentially with a decline in ad revenue. It is a complicated situation – companies provide the tools which costs for personnel, hardware, and bandwidth. Some have responsibilities to stockholders to generate profits and offer a return to investors. Most depend on content creators who receive little or nothing for their contributions.

The value I found in the podcast interview was the specific descriptions of some of the financial variables associated with a service such as Reddit and importantly in this case the smaller supporting companies that depend on the infrastructure, members, and content creators provided by Reddit.

Content creators can make money on platforms such as Reddit, YouTube, and Medium. However, services such as these tend to have minimums that must be met before a content creator makes anything. For example, to receive a cut of ad revenue from YouTube a partner must accumulate 1000 subscribers and 4000 public watch hours in the last 12 months. So, if you can meet such levels YouTube will split the revenue generated with you.

Personal note – I was once eligible when YouTube had a lower hour total and no user requirement. I don’t generate many videos anymore and am nowhere close to what would be required.

I began cross-posting some of my blog posts to Medium which has a 100 user follower requirement. Again, have not qualified for the follower minimum. My posts receive attention at about the same level as the original blog posts, but these views do not translate into followers. I admit I use Medium in kind of the same way. I read a few things that are relevant to me and come to my attention, but I don’t follow many individuals. I subscribed to the service for a bit, but eventually decided to invest my subscription money in other services.

To be fair, if you are interested in your content being viewed and read, you can make free use of these platforms. You just have no hope of generating income if that is your main motivation.

The system I continue to support is that provided by Brave. Brave is a chromium browser (very similar to Chrome) that will show consenting users ads without relying on personal information and that allows those browsing to share some of the revenue generated through these ads with content creators who register with Brave. I have been a Brave user for 6 years now and as a content creator and micropayment supporter of other content creators, I pretty much break even on my costs and income. I originally invested $50 in the cryptocurrency used to anonymously connect producers and consumers and the value of this initial contribution was inflated by the whims of the crypto market. I am slowly depleting this investment as the inflated value of crypto has come down and my micropayments for viewing narrowly exceed what I take in as a content creator. This system seems fair to me. A piece of the pie for the service provider (Brave), content consumers, and content creators.

I am reluctant to abandon the blogs which I post through a paid provider (BlueHost). I have maintained a blog for more than 20 years and the accumulation of thousands of posts has value to me if for no other reason than it is such an integrated history of my thinking on so many issues. There are ads on my blog posts (you are reading such a post at this point) and I pay approximately $150-200 a year for the services I use. My income is probably $15-25. It is a hobby, but I do value the content I have created. Aside from the value of reading to write in order to generate posts, participation in the online world as a creator has always allowed me to gain insights into the workings of this environment.

My prediction is that the present model is going to change and I think the Reddit situation is a harbinger. As services move from ad-supported models to subscriptions, I anticipate content creators will respond by seeking situations in which their content has value as well.