The Curmudgeon Speaks

You may not recognize the names – Laura Edelson and Damon McCoy, but if you follow the tech news you may know that Facebook recently “unauthorized” researchers trying to understand misinformation circulated through Facebook. This was Edelson and McCoy – academics from New York University. I became interested when I read their frustration with the way they were treated by Facebook in the NYTimes (you may not have access – try some of the links I offer).

When their research. Edelson and McCoy received a short message claiming – Facebook says we used “unauthorized means to access and collect data” and that it shut us out to comply with an order from the Federal Trade Commission to respect the privacy of its users. The researchers claim they focus on the ads Facebook includes in user posts and not the identity of users.

In reading the article, I realized that I have been participating in the researcher’s work that is based on the installation of a browser extension – AD Observer. This extension collects the Facebook ads (and YouTube) you experience, shares this data with the researchers and with you, and shows you why you received the ads that you did. You provide some basic data to the researchers (see red box around settings) to help in the process of trying to understand why you were served the ads you experienced.

One thing I have learned by looking at the ads is that I would not necessarily label some of the ads as ads and it is interesting to know someone paid to target me with this information.

Here are a few additional links to these researches: A podcast with Edelson as a guest, Recode description of Edelson and McCoy situation.

I just finished reading Senator Klobuchar’s book on antitrust. This would not normally be a topic I investigate in-depth, but the topic relates to the constriction of options in journalism, textbook publishing, and social media. These are all areas I believe are important and innovation is being limited and public understanding diminished as a consequence. With so many topics, politicians end up being mocked for the understanding of issues facing the public (e.g., technology). Read the Klobuchar book and you will not hold that opinion about her understanding of this issue.

Getting through the book was a struggle. The topic is dense and there are a lot of legal positions to consider. Klobuchar made a statement (see above) that seems an apt description of so many issues we kind of understand, know the issues are important, but can’t get to the level at which our opinions would be strong enough to push for action. There are so many priorities government might address – why this one or that one? In this age of political weirdness, I think trust is such an important variable.

I discovered an interesting technological capability that might be useful. I highlight and annotate when I read. Diigo (a notetaking service I use) offers me a way to share these annotations. I think I will start doing this when I encourage others to read a given book.

I was thinking about the issue of requiring COVID shots at Universities after reading that a Federal Judge had cleared Indiana University to make this demand of students and faculty. What returned my attention to this issue was the University of North Dakota President making the decision not to require shots before students would be allowed on campus in the fall. Encourage everyone to get a shot – yes. Require a shot – no. UND was the institution where I spent most of my career.

The reluctance to take action to limit the spread and damage of this issue puzzled me. I see this as a failing of logic. I remember that UND had a requirement that incoming students and faculty prove they have had other vaccinations. I checked just to make certain I had not imagined this requirement. Nope the required shots were easy enough to find. Why then would the administration decide to allow those unvaccinated against COVID, a more likely health problem, to endanger themselves and others. The only explanation I could come up with was the Republican bias of the states. Politicians within the state had come under pressure for expecting masks and shots and administrators at a state institution seemed leery of similar criticism.

UND wants to promote the mantra – “Leaders go here”. Here is an opportunity to demonstrate leadership and stand for the facts and science you teach and you wimp out. The state’s Med school and a major nursing pre program are even located at UND. The claim this is a personal choice is bunk. Others should not exposed to danger because of your personal choice. Don’t be wimps.

We are taking a summer trip to visit several state parks in the upper midwest. We have plenty of time to go elsewhere, but the popularity of travel following the pandemic makes getting into National Parks nearly impossible.

We have been documenting our trips for the past several years and you are welcome to take a look at https:/grabetravels.blogspot.com or https://pixelfed.social/grabe. By the way, Pixelfed makes a great alternative to Instagram if you are interested in escaping from the Facebook empire.

Anyone besides me remember Joe Friday and his request – Just the facts, ma’am. (not what he actually said).

I am writing this in reaction to an MPR piece on the race and history controversy at Pequot Lakes – a small Minnesota community.

I have not faced people who act like this in person so I struggle trying to understand the arguments they might make. My attitude toward education begins with the role of facts in understanding. Education cannot be about teaching a fantasy. Facts are facts in small town Minnesota or inner city Minneapolis. This labeling problem the right uses claiming a given social program is socialism or facts about racism are the equivalent of critical race theory use poorly understood concepts to stoke fear and anger. If the facts make you feel sad or ashamed such reactions could be appropriate. I want to understand what educators have argued and whether such positions reflect the facts as established by those with the appropriate expertise. I also want to know that those trying to influence what teachers teach acknowledge those same facts.

I thought I should try to write something in personal recognition of our country’s recognition of Juneteenth.

The title of this post obviously implies a different focus, but there is a connection of sorts with Juneteenth. Just as Texans willfully ignored the end of slavery as a by-product of the end of the Civil War, too many continue to willfully ignore the injustices that plague this country and try to find ways to impose this ignorance on others who might be willing to learn the facts of reality. Juneteenth was about recognizing truth – the folks in Texas were still being treated as slaves when they were not. This had to change.

Some politicians use inaccurate terms to label practices in an attempt to confuse and misrepresent. Such has been the case with the Republican branding of political actions that benefit citizens as “socialism” and now the use of “critical race theory” in an attempt to prevent educators from teaching the facts of racial injustice. As has been the case with socialism, I doubt most could originally define socialism or critical race theory in a meaningful or accurate way. The words have a connotation that sounds scary or threatening.

I would refer folks to Wikipedia for a discussion of critical race theory. I believe most are quite capable of understanding that critical race theory is not about the basic historical facts of slavery or the theft of lands from indigenous people. I would describe critical race theory as more an academic position or philosophy to be debated which can be easily differentiated from the facts of history. One can use the facts in such debates, but the facts stand alone unchallenged.

Allow me to address the teaching of the facts of history. Let me begin with the intent of learning most subjects. I would describe one important goal as seeking the truth. While some may argue about the truth associated with certain phenomena (e.g., evolution vs. creationism), this is not an issue within the disciplines – e.g., science, history. If the discipline is religion, the presentation of the belief system within that discipline may be different. Truth is slippery in both science and history, but at least those who practice these disciplines realize this, and the processes of the disciplines are designed for improvement – i.e., embracing new facts as they are discovered and supported by evidence.

If I can work this out, I would think those with the background preparing them for public office can do the same. From this, I conclude that what Republican politicians present to the public when it comes to processes such as socialism and perspectives such as critical race theory are examples of purposeful ignorance. You can translate this as purposeful deceit (lies) if you need to recognize this in a more blunt way.

Let’s be honest about our historical past. This acceptance is not about making learners feel bad about themselves, but about making them better and more knowledgeable people. Each generation should want the next generation to improve and you don’t improve by ignoring personal or historical failures.

If you use Apple mobile devices, you may have recently encountered a display such as the one that appears above. The new operating system for phones and tablets from Apple now blocks what are called third-party cookies by default. You can change this default if you want.

A third party in comparison to a first-party cookie is using information you have stored from a website you are not currently visiting. This is how you can see advertisements for cars on Twitter when you were searching for cars using Google. A first-party cookie shows you ads based on the website that is currently active.

I am against blocking cookies because this is the way you compensate the content creators and service providers for using their resources. I am not against blocking third-party cookies because the ads you see are not directly related to the site you are visiting or the service you are using. This seems fair.

More information from CNET.

Maybe I am just old and set in my ways, but the arguments rejecting traditional education practices (listening/watching presentations and reading books) puzzle me. I enjoy both ways of becoming acquainted with new things. Partly, I am confused with the approach some take to making the point these are inferior methods.

First, there is the guy who recommends abandoning the use of textbooks. He made his case by writing a book – Ditch the Textbook. If you wanted to explain your thinking on the superiority of ways to convey new ideas that are superior to a book, wouldn’t you make this case in a way other than by writing a book.

I listen to a lot of podcasts when we spend long periods of time in the car or when I exercise. I found a similar anomaly with this method of presentation – educators who drone on about the problems with lectures. While some of these sessions are entertaining, they are seldom very efficient in offering information explaining the limitations of the instructor-dominated presentation and the topic only makes sense if the presentation is intended to demonstrate the limitations of one or two people talking at you.

I think those who reject the lecture or the textbook have a strange understanding of how learning happens. Both lectures and textbooks tend to offer organized and efficient exposure to ideas. I read and listen to some things for entertainment, but I also read and listen to some things because I expect to be exposed to ideas from experts. I don’t expect exposure to be the end of the learning process and I don’t know a lecturer or textbook author who assumes listening or reading was the end of the learning process. I am looking for an efficient way to start the process of learning. I find myself irritated by presenters who decide I should be involved in social interactions or reflection experiences as a component of their presentation. I would rather the presenter allow me the opportunity to take ideas and process these ideas as I want. Peer discussion sometimes is helpful, but I want to start the process exposed to someone with something to offer and then to make my own decision whether discussion with other novices would be helpful.

Maybe the difference here is a matter of motivation. I read and watch/listen to things I am motivated to learn. Perhaps I would prefer less efficient and externally controlled approaches if I would be put in situations in which I was asked to learn things that I must know, but don’t find interesting. I don’t think so.

I have two online conferences on my scheduled and as a retired academic I think it likely this will be the way I continue my own professional development. For me, the online conference is now to some extent a financial matter. When I was still working, I supported the majority of the majority of my professional travel, but at least I was subsidized. Retired academics, emeritus of not, don’t continue to receive this perk.

I have written about the future of the academic conference before, but the present post was prompted by this post in Tech & Learning. Much of the content that that post focuses on the ISTE conference which is one I have already sent in my money to experience remotely in a few months. I would add one insight to the commentary provided by this author, online access allows a user to take in more presentations. Here is the problem I constantly found with the face to face version of ISTE. ISTE is a very large conference and the interest in many sessions often exceeds the capacity of the room and what is probably a fire code. An ISTE worker is stationed at the door to cut off admission when this capacity has been exceeded. In anticipation of this problem, participants line up outside rooms to gain admission when seats from the preceding session exist the room. This often meant that when you left one session and headed to the next you would arrive too late to be admitted. This resulted in two inefficiencies – staying in a room listening to sessions for which I had only moderate interest in order to listen to a session for which I had high interest or skipping every other session to make certain I would have a set for the sessions I really wanted to watch. No problems of this type exist when you participate online.

There are clearly disadvantages. I like to ask questions at the end of sessions or after a session. While those software supporting online access have attempted to find ways to provide some type of interaction with speakers or other attendees, these approaches have a long way to go in terms of the technology and the conventions that would make this effective.

The game Republicans continue to play in which participants must pretend that Trump did not lose the election is strange to the point it should embarrass anyone admitting to voting Republican. Taking positions on how the country should function should focus on core values and the representation of citizens and not these strange fantasies and conspiracies. The ignorance that follows from this mindless commitment to falsehood is damaging to the point people refuse to wear masks and be vaccinated in order to demonstrate their allegiance. I have little personal concern when it comes to whether Cheney continues in her leadership role, but I do wish Republicans could move past this charade.