Mediaboss Marketing

The arXiv.org (said as archive) is one of the oldest websites on the internet and serves as a curated collection of scholarly preprints submitted by recognized scientist. I even have a paper there on massive star formation (arXiv:1311.3983). I tried to publish in another area and they say submit to a journal and get feedback. Then a favorable review isnt enough, so I need to get it published. Then in a subsequent email from them, I must get it published in a mainstream journal with no guarantee that being published in any journal would do the trick.

What is arXiv, why they moderate, and why that can go wrong.

The arXiv has to maintain a certain standard for a reason. The value of arXiv is that it provides a copy of papers that cost money either way. That means it is moderated. This is a reasonable thing to do. There is also an appeals process which is supposed to avoid abuses. However, when moderation devolves into unreasoned censorship and even doing what they tell you to get a paper up there may not sway them someone has to call it what it is.

So, I get endorsements, twice, that is not so unusual.

They ask that I submit to a peer reviewed journal for the requisite feedback. I get back a review from Science/Nature (does not matter which one) a long detailed review stating that the paper is not bad, and would be of interest to a small audience. Just not a big enough audience for Nature/Science.

Then arxiv says they need for it to be published in a mainstream journal. I ask for clarification of just what comprises a mainstream journal which would ensure acceptance on arXiv. Then I get this.

So even if I did what they asked it would probably not be enough. Supposed I submitted to another Nature/Science journal more focused on a specialty . What would the result be. I could never pay an open access fee for such a journal it would be too much. So even if I got it published in Nature/Science or a journal in one of those families that may not be enough. Hypothetically acceptance in Nature/Science wouldn't be enough for them.

Whats the big deal?

In this day and age most papers, in the fields of Physics, and Astronomy, are published open access in some form or fashion.

In this climate being published in a paywalled, traditional, and what I surmise they mean by mainstream, format is little better than not being published at all.

If one is browsing for papers on their Ipad, or phone or other device and has to pay they are not going to read it. If one has to even enter university library credentials that can be a pain in the rump many will simply avoid.

The assumption that serious researchers would be reading on a computer, on a campus, logged into a university or national lab IT system, etc is from the early 2000s or really the 1990s.

Philosophically, I believe in open access and I believe in public, post publication, peer review. The peoples taxes pay my salary, and for my retirement, and whos taxes loaned me money for school and pay for the facilities I rely on. They shouldnt have to pay Springer or Elsevier $30 bucks to read my work. If anything I should pay them to host it.

As for public, peer review, post publication, the attitude of the arXiv moderators shows why thats needed. It is possible to be frank, honest, and negative, without being unreasonable or insulting. Having to be publicly accountable for ones words ensures fairness in the process. Individual researchers are then free to use their own judgement on the pros and cons of a paper and contribute to the flow of ideas that will lead ultimately to greater knowledge accepting or rejecting all or part of a paper individually. The mainstream and traditional process is based on authority and belongs to a past era of paper and ink not hard drives and internet.

The bottom line

Yes, the arXiv does in fact censor ideas that dont fit the taste of the moderators. Even if those ideas have been found acceptable enough to publish, or have at a conference. . Yet they accepted how many papers about faster than light neutrino physics based on a clearly obviously flawed set up? Accepting those and not papers like mine which have a prayer of being right and propose an experiment to prove or disprove them is not scientific moderation. What that is is art criticism based on ones feelings about an idea without reasons and logic. That is the essence of censorship, not moderation.

Visit link:
Censorship at the arXiv: endorsements, and even publication won't matter. - Science 2.0

Social Media Policy Town Hall. Photo from the Facebook page of the Presidential Communications Operations Office

The Philippine government may soongive media accreditation to bloggers and other social media publishers. Many have welcomed the initiative as a positive step towards citizen engagement but others worry that the proposed guidelines on how bloggers can join government-sponsored events could undermine the independence of accredited social media publishers.

The Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) organizeda Social Media Policy Town Hallevent to announce the creation of a Social Media Office, unveil the guidelines on how PCOO employees can use social media, and consult the public about the framework for social media accreditation.

Last month, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte agreed to the request of his online supporters to document his activities inside the presidential palace. It led to the discussion of whether the government can give media accreditation to bloggers. This was also proposed during the previous administration but it was refused after mainstream media groups cited the issue of accountability and professionalism involving bloggers and other netizens.

Accredited bloggers will have faster processing for on-site or access passes to PCOO events and activities. They will also be included in the agency's mailing list and media volunteer programs.

During the Social Media Policy Town Hall, the PCOO discussed the draft guidelines for media accreditation of bloggers. Bloggers or social media publishers with at least 1,000 followers can apply for accreditation. They must have editorial independence, they are barred from endorsing commercial products, and they have to follow the PCOOs code of conduct. In particular, they should refrain from using offensive, inflammatory, or provocative language. Further, accredited bloggers should post all press releases and statements of the PCOO.

An online poster announcing the Social Media Policy Town Hall. Image from the Facebook page of the Philippine Information Agency.

In a press statement, Presidential Communications Secretary Martin Andanar mentioned the reason why the government drafted the social media policy:

Were in interesting times wherein we are seeing bloggers with names become bigger than anyone Its a phenomenon that we have to embrace, at the same time we also have to control.

Danilo Arao, a journalism professor, highlighted this quote in his critique of the governments social media policy:

a supposedly harmless gesture of voluntary accreditation becomes a scheming attempt to control online content.

He described the 10-page draft memorandum as a self-serving document that seeks to make mouthpieces of accredited social media users.

He explained further how the draft disempowers bloggers as critical and independent reporters:

This essentially reduces the accredited ones to mere mouthpieces of the PCOO. And when analyzed in the context of one of the guidelines that they should not use language that is offensive, inflammatory, or provocative (PCOO, 2017, p. 7), it becomes clear that contrary views are unacceptable lest they be misinterpreted as provocative.

Noemi Lardizabal-Dado, a speaker during the town hall, reiterated that bloggers should not be required to publish everything what government officials are saying or doing:

it is not a matter of sharing press releases as part of our responsibility. Bloggers are independent minded and have the freedom of choice which press release to share or write about.

Antonio Contreras, another speaker in the town hall, reminded the government about the consequence of strictly regulating social media users:

The moment you begin regulating it (social media), you are constraining it.

Blogger Trixie Angeles warned that the proposed code of conduct can stifle the creativity and freedom of bloggers:

This code of conduct is very worrisome. Social media is like the wild, wild west. If traditional media is the very proper east coast, we're the wild west. The reason why we have such a wild reach is because we are a little free-er in our speech.

Tess Termulo, another blogger who participated in the event, echoed a similar point:

What would be considered as offensive? Does offending feelings considered offensive? With the arguments online, it is easy to be offended.

I think this also represents the freedom of bloggers to be more expressive with what they post as opposed to traditional journalists who follow a stricter code of ethics. Since this is an aspect of expression that traditional journalists must exercise utmost restraint, it is up to the bloggers to be able to express the pulse of ordinary citizens.

Among those who attended the town hall were pro-Duterte bloggers who were initially granted the privilege of interviewing the president inside the Malacanang Palace. They were also part of the group of bloggers who petitioned the government for media accreditation.

Below are some Twitter reactions about the event:

The town hall succeeded in gathering bloggers who are interested to join other journalists in covering the president's activities. It allowed the government to determine the views of bloggers about its proposed social media policy. There are several objections to the content of the memorandum, but fortunately the PCOO said it will consider the suggestions and views raised during the town hall. The office will release an updated memorandum this month.

Link:
Philippines Offers Media Credentials to Bloggers But Some ... - Global Voices Online

Mary Burkett, Washington County Republican Party 7:04 a.m. MT March 3, 2017

Mary Burkett(Photo: Jud Burkett / The Spectrum & Daily News)Buy Photo

Police are given discretion as to which cases they will pursue. They make choices about the severity and intent of a crime.

Prosecutors have discretion about which cases they will take to trial, whether to plea bargain and which offenses are most worth going to trial.

Juries, according to the law, have discretion. In many cases, jurors do not know it.

HB332 (Criminal Procedure Revisions) is before the Utah State Legislature and addresses ensuring that judges instruct juries about their discretion. Take a few minutes to read the summary (le.utah.gov), the first few and last paragraphs of the bill. It is designed to ensure that juries are fully informed of their options when deciding a verdict, including jury nullification.

Most of us dont know that jury nullification is a valid option. Simply put, someone can break a law and show in court that the law is unjust. The jury can then return a not guilty verdict. This is where juries have discretion.

Womens March, media fuel divisive movement

Its a remarkable idea. As the Libertas Institute explains, Juries serve as one component of a much larger justice system a final checkpoint to help ensure, as far as possible, that innocent individuals are not wrongfully convicted or that well-intentioned laws do not create an injustice by being unfairly applied to a particular person or circumstance.

However, there are judges and lawyers who do not like the idea of jury nullification so they withhold this vital information from the jury. Its much easier to control an ignorant jury. HB332 will stop this withholding of information.

There are high-profile cases in which juries have likely gone rogue.

The O.J. Simpson jury may very well have practiced nullification by finding the defendant not guilty even though they thought he had committed two murders but because the investigating detectives were seen as racists, they were justified to find him not guilty.

Other legal experts have called the George Zimmerman verdict in the Trayvon Martin case a classic example of jury nullification.

In 2009, Doug Darrell was charged with cultivating marijuana for distribution in New Hampshire. He said that the marijuana was being grown for personal use and religious purposes. His attorney actually had to ask the judge to tell the jury they had the right to nullify and they did.

Circumstances surrounding most jury nullification cases include unjust laws, unjust sentencing guidelines, victimless crimes and particulars of a single case, including mitigating factors.

Jury nullification is neither a Democrat or Republican issue, although many Libertarians have taken it up as a cause.

The bigger point is simple. And very important. When there are injustices, juries, a group of regular Americans pulled from voter rolls, can right wrongs. Its one of the many ways that the Founders showed their faith in their fellow citizens.

Its an optimistic view of the future, so contrary to the view liberals hold toward their fellow Americans. Where liberals treat their fellow Americans like victims, constantly trying to allow the government to interfere with their lives, with the intent of fixing things citizens are better served to fix themselves, our Founders and today, conservatives, have high hopes and expectations for the American people. We have faith in our fellow citizens, as demonstrated by the idea of jury nullification.

A few of the great resources online to learn more include Fully Informed Jury Association, Cop Block, Truth in Justice and the Libertas Institute.

Mary Burkett is a member of the Washington County Republican Party.

Read or Share this story: http://www.thespectrum.com/story/opinion/2017/03/03/legislature-should-ensure-juries-know-their-options/98681444/

Read the original:
Legislature should ensure juries know their options - St. George Daily Spectrum

Enterprise Irregulars (blog)

What We Know About Making Enterprise Social Networks Successful Today Enterprise Irregulars (blog) It's a little hard to believe that it's been over ten years now since the first early enterprise social networks (ESN) emerged on the market to make their initial forays into our organizations. They showed us then and I believe even more now today ...

See the original post here:
What We Know About Making Enterprise Social Networks Successful Today - Enterprise Irregulars (blog)

For years, electric utilities have increasingly embraced smart meters. Roughly 65 million of the devices have been installed in the United States over the last few years, with 57 million of them in consumer homes. The meters provide innumerable benefits to utility companies, often delivering an ocean of new remote access and monitoring tools to better manage the network and reduce meter reading truck rolls. The benefits to consumers (outside of accuracy) have been less notable, including interference with some home routers, as well as the fact that a number of models have been shown to be relatively easily hacked.

In addition to hackability, the sheer volume of data being gobbed up by utility companies tells an awful lot about you (when you wake, when you sleep, when you're home or away). This has, at times, sparked outrage from locals in places like Naperville, Illinois, where, since 2011, meter opponents have been fighting the intrusive nature of the devices:

"...Opponents say the meters provide so much information that everyone from cops to criminals to marketing departments can learn when people are home and what they do when they're there. Last year, the anti-meter movement fell just short of collecting enough signatures to place a question on the ballot asking residents to decide whether the devices should be removed. They also have a pending federal lawsuit against the city alleging that their constitutional right to due process has been violated."

That was 2013. In 2015, the city of Naperville was forced to settle with one smart meter opponent after she sued the city and four of its police officers for violating her constitutional rights. That same year, another man sued the city over what he claimed was an unwarranted search into his home. But last fall, a federal district court in Illinois declared that Americans can't reasonably expect any privacy in the data collected by these devices, and utility collection of it is completely beyond the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

That case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. And the EFF and Privacy International have asked the Seventh Circuit if they can weigh in on the case. In a blog post, the EFF points out that the court's decision was based on a misunderstanding of how the technology actually works. Basically, the court assumed that these new meters work in exactly the same way as their older counterparts, ignoring the significantly-expanded data collected:

"The court was convinced that data collected from smart meters is no different from data collected from analog meters, in terms of what it reveals about whats going on inside the home. But thats simply not the case. Smart meters not only produce far more data than analog metersthose set at collecting data in 15-minute intervals produce 2,880 meter readings per month compared to just one monthly reading for analog metersbut the data is also far more intimate. A single monthly read of cumulative household energy use does not reveal how energy is being used throughout the course of a day. But smart meter data does. And its time granularity tells a story about what is going on inside the home for anyone who wishes to read it."

As we've seen with cellular location data, once companies collect this information, it's often sold to any number of third parties who may be using this data in ways that aren't always in your best interests. But as Tim Cushing has occassionally noted, getting companies to be forthcoming about what they're collecting and who they may be selling it to is sometimes difficult, with at least one company suing to thwart transparency efforts on the subject in Seattle. And as Glyn Moody has also noted, this collision between privacy rights and utility data collection on the smart meter front isn't just an American phenomenon.

Read this article:
EFF: Data Collected From Utility Smart Meters Should Be Protected By The Fourth Amendment - Techdirt