spinofflive
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern speaking to media in New York where she is attending the UN General Assembly. (Photo: AFP)
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern speaking to media in New York where she is attending the UN General Assembly. (Photo: AFP)

The BulletinSeptember 22, 2022

The big three missing from Christchurch Call announcement

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern speaking to media in New York where she is attending the UN General Assembly. (Photo: AFP)
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern speaking to media in New York where she is attending the UN General Assembly. (Photo: AFP)
newsletter

Meta, Google and TikTok have a combined annual revenue of $400b, yet were missing from the list of social media companies pledging to support a $1.5m research project into algorithms, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in The Bulletin.

 

What is a social media algorithm?

Deciding to write a 500-ish word lead on social media algorithms and yesterday’s announcement of a new Christchurch Call initiative is maybe not my smartest call. It’s a very large subject. But sometimes these things get reported and there’s an assumption that everyone will nod knowingly and say “yes, the social media algorithms” and “$1.5m to study them to end extremism online? Seems good”. Words like “platforms” and “algorithms” are a bit opaque. To start, here’s an excellent and recent explainer from NPR on social media algorithms, why they exist, how they influence what you see online and how they do or don’t steer people towards outrage and radicalisation.

Yesterday’s announcement a response to questions about the Call’s efficacy

The announcement consisted of a commitment of $1.5m towards researching social media algorithms in collaboration with the company Openmined. If you’re a tech buff, here’s their website. RNZ have the simplest overview of what the research actually involves. Established as a response to the Christchurch mosque shootings, the goal of the Christchurch Call is to end online extremism. RNZ’s Colin Peacock had a very good recap of where we were at in May. “Nobody really talks about the algorithms of these social media companies,” Imran Shakib from the Islamic Council of New Zealand said at the time.

Biggest and fastest growing platform missing from list of collaborators

Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp), Google (owns YouTube) and ByteDance (TikTok) were conspicuous by their absence from the list of companies that are cooperating with the research. The prime minister brushed criticism of that aside saying “Once we are able to build that platform, that could be used across multiple platforms”. That might be the case, but it wasn’t clear whether permission from non-participating social media platforms is required for the work or why the company that owns TikTok isn’t participating. TikTok is the fastest growing platform in the world right now. It’s also plagued by all the same problems every other corner of the internet is – hate speech, extremist content and misinformation. Garbage Day’s Ryan Broderick wrote a fantastic piece yesterday on TikTok’s dominance and described its algorithm as the most aggressive we’ve seen.

Internet NZ says our laws and processes are not adequate

The companies not cooperating have a combined annual revenue of $400b, twice our GDP. The New Zealand arms of Meta and Google sent $284m back to their parent companies (paywalled) this year. Regulation of those companies (no easy task based on how it’s going in the US right now), is a can that’s been repeatedly kicked down the road. Internet NZ’s Andrew Cushing, a Christchurch Call advisory group member, said yesterday “that our laws and processes are not adequate for the online world that we live in, and some communities are experiencing hate, hurt and threats of violence.” Meanwhile, those communities are still waiting for a new national intelligence and security agency to be set-up, three years on from the horrific events that sparked the Christchurch Call in the first place.

More Reading
    Keep going!
    Almost three-quarters of mayoral candidates are opposed to Three Waters reforms. (Photo: RNZ)
    Almost three-quarters of mayoral candidates are opposed to Three Waters reforms. (Photo: RNZ)

    The BulletinSeptember 21, 2022

    The battle between local and central government

    Almost three-quarters of mayoral candidates are opposed to Three Waters reforms. (Photo: RNZ)
    Almost three-quarters of mayoral candidates are opposed to Three Waters reforms. (Photo: RNZ)
    newsletter

    With a laundry list of critical issues like water infrastructure and housing to address, consensus between local and central government seems like a pipe dream, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in The Bulletin

     

    Relationship between local and central government critical

    In a recent piece from the Herald’s Simon Wilson (paywalled), he lists questions he wants to ask Auckland mayoral candidate Wayne Brown. One of those is how Brown proposes to work with central government, citing Brown’s failure to get government on board with a review of the future of the port in Auckland in 2018. As we know, the future of the port remains undecided. Wilson’s question is important in the present day context of the mayoral race in Auckland but it’s also demonstrative of how important that relationship is for the sake of getting anything done in New Zealand, whether it be initiated by local or central government.

    Three quarters of mayoral candidates don’t think Three Waters is right way forward

    Right now, the relationship doesn’t seem to be in the best shape. Results of a Local Democracy Reporting survey yesterday found 75.3% of mayoral candidates don’t think the Three Waters reforms are the best way to achieve the investment that is sorely needed in water infrastructure. Both the Auckland and Christchurch councils are pushing back on housing density rules. The Detail covered this issue well yesterday. What a time to be alive when someone is describing “people on the sidelines with popcorn” in the battle between the government and Christchurch city council. The Act party leader and deputy leader are headed to Christchurch to get amongst it, with a public meeting on the issue planned for Thursday. Government says it’s willing to chat options. In his newsletter for subscribers yesterday morning, Bernard Hickey indicates there are signs the bipartisan densification pact may be softened.

    Calls to clarify what power council has following statement on productive land

    In 2019/2020, total revenue for councils in New Zealand was $13.9b. For the government that same year it was $116b. The government has far greater spending power than councils and you can see the appeal of centralisation and reform driven from Wellington as infrastructure deficits grow and costs rise. On the other hand, criticism about decision-making in Wellington and its distance from parts of New Zealand is valid. Recent government moves to protect productive land from housing development have been met by calls to clarify exactly what power council has in Auckland. You have to wonder why that wasn’t clarified with councils prior to the statement being put out.

    Shuffle between central and local government stymies progress

    Hickey has also summed up what he thinks is magical thinking from the government on that particular issue. His exasperation is palpable. The constant shuffle between central and local government stymies progress in a country as small as New Zealand. It’s almost unavoidable that local issues get framed through the lens of battles about big national issues here but according to this from the London School of Economics, that’s not necessarily good for how people feel about local democracy. In my area, all local election billboards are being defaced, but the ones with clear government association seem to be suffering from more regular attempts to poke out the candidates’ eyes. That can not be a good sign for local candidates or central government, or indeed anyone hoping for an aligned vision on how we might tackle our biggest challenges.