chadkoh

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
mae
 

This article examines the growing trend of online platform migration and technology non-use, driven by dissatisfaction with existing platforms and the search for safer, more inclusive digital spaces, reshaping social connections and digital ecosystems.

NOTE: It is restricted access unfortunately.

4
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by chadkoh@lemmy.ml to c/mae@lemmy.ml
 

In a capitalist world, the often-overlooked systems of technical standards offer a rare example of economic collaboration that prioritizes the public good over profit.

 

Julie E. Cohen (Georgetown University Law Center) argues that understanding tech oligarchy is now an urgent priority in political economy

 

This Chapter investigates how the Internet has been, and is currently, governed. It examines multistakeholderism as one of the dominant approaches to Internet governance: the concept of multilateral collaboration and decision-making as to the content and infrastructure of the Internet. It identifies pitfalls with this model, including the hegemonic impulses of participants and the creep of private sector power caused by large technology companies. It then interrogates whether the emerging concept of digital constitutionalism can remedy multistakeholderism's pitfalls in the age of the large technology company. The Chapter sets out areas of tension that proponents of digital constitutionalism will need to resolve if it is indeed to push back against the twin threats of private sector power and the emerging sovereigntist impulses of authoritarian states.

 

Governments have begun to view AI compute infrastructures, including advanced AI chips, as a geostrategic resource. This is partly because “compute governance” is believed to be emerging as an important tool for governing AI systems. In this governance model, states that host AI compute capacity within their territorial jurisdictions are likely to be better placed to impose their rules on AI systems than states that do not. In this study, we provide the first attempt at mapping the global geography of public cloud GPU compute, one particularly important category of AI compute infrastructure. Using a census of hyperscale cloud providers’ cloud regions, we observe that the world is divided into “Compute North” countries that host AI compute relevant for AI development (ie. training), “Compute South” countries whose AI compute is more relevant for AI deployment (ie. running inferencing), and “Compute Desert” countries that host no public cloud AI compute at all. We generate potential explanations for the results using expert interviews, discuss the implications to AI governance and technology geopolitics, and consider possible future trajectories.

 

Policymakers face increased pressure to regulate digital markets to balance competition, privacy, and innovation. While traditional policy literature views regulation as a technical problem requiring specific interventions, there is significant debate about the appropriate solutions. This analysis synthesizes both technocratic and political perspectives, proposing a framework to predict effective regulatory remedies by examining common market structures.

 

Examining how U.S. regulation of media infrastructure over the past century—spanning broadband, digital platforms, and data centers—has eroded civil liberties and democratic principles, this book interweaves historical and interdisciplinary perspectives to elucidate how policies from an analog era continue to shape today’s digital governance. The work fosters a comprehensive understanding of the policy challenges faced and inspires potential restorative actions to realign infrastructure regulation with public interest and equity.

 

This talk analyzes how the US, China, and the EU shape the global digital order. The speaker examines different regulatory models: US market-driven, Chinese state-driven, and EU rights-driven approaches. The discussion highlighted shifts in tech regulation, including AI governance, geopolitical impacts, and the rise of digital sovereignty. Despite challenges, the talk emphasized the importance of democratic governance over critical tech policy decisions.

 

Abstract

Reinforced by the technological decoupling and the related battle for technological supremacy between the United States and China, telecommunication technology has become increasingly politicised. As the functioning of global telecommunication technology relies on interoperability and compatibility, government and private actors have strong incentives to shape the underlying standards in their economic and political interests. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and its Members play a central role in setting these standards for future telecommunication technology. Despite the ITU's importance in this field, relatively little is known about the organisation's work on standardisation and the actors behind it. This Policy Insight introduces a new data set on the involvement of over 800 government and private actors and their almost 50,000 contributions to ITU standardisation processes between 2000 and 2022. A descriptive analysis of the data set illustrates that particularly Chinese actors—Huawei, ZTE, China Mobile, China Unicom and China Telecom—have been actively driving the ITU's standardisation processes in the areas of transport, access and home but also future networks and cloud. The data set introduced here is envisaged as a source which allows researchers to study the reasons and implications for certain actors' involvement in the international standardisation of telecommunication and digitalisation.

1
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by chadkoh@lemmy.ml to c/mae@lemmy.ml
 

The Green Web Foundation tackles "How power consolidation of digital infrastructures threatens our democracies-and what we can do about it"

1
An Open Letter to the United Nations (open-internet-governance.org)
 

some proposals for the Global Digital Compact (GDC) can be read to mandate more centralized governance. If the final document contains such language, we believe it will be detrimental to not only the Internet and the Web, but also to the world’s economies and societies.

view more: next ›