Podcast appearances and mentions of ella mcpherson

In this episode we speak to two brilliant professors here at Cambridge, Mónica Moreno Figueroa and Ella McPherson about a data project they launched at the University of Cambridge to track everyday racism in the university. We discuss using technology for social good without being obsessed with the technology itself and the importance of tracking how racism dehumanises people, confuses us about each other, and causes physical suffering, which students of colour have to deal with on top of the ordinary stress of their uni degree. 

Participants: Sepake Angiama (Institute for International Visual Arts-London), Gavin Grindon (University of Essex), Ella McPherson (University of Cambridge), Pelin Tan (Bard College) Moderators: Alex Grigor, Michal Huss, Konstantinos Pittas Description: This panel looks at contestations around cultural commons and strategies to re-claim and re-mobilise them. In addition, the unfolding global health crisis urges to think about its repercussions to the basic rights of access to culture, to the diversity of cultural content and expression online, and to the precarious-now more than ever-art and cultural labour. With cultural institutions closing down, major artistic and cultural events postponed, and community cultural practices suspended on the one hand, and with the acceleration in the digitisation of cultural content and the surge in online access to this content on the other, what are the potentialities and stakes of this new reality in light of the coronavirus pandemic? How can widespread protests against toxic philanthropy, institutional racism, art washing, and gender discrimination help us to envision museums taking the side of the commons? How can culture and aesthetics serve as innovative terrains for encounters and exchanges, solidarity and sharing, synergies and community building? The final section of this panel included audiences participation. This was not recorded due to GDPR guidelines. Thank you for your understanding. VIRTUAL CONFERENCE PROGRAMME: Commoning the City Friday 12 June 2020, 14.00 – 15.45 (BST) Participants: Ash Amin (University of Cambridge), Massimo De Angelis (University of East London), Shannon Mattern (The New School), Richard Sennett (Chair, Council on Urban Initiatives, United Nations Habitat) Whose Commons, for Whom? Friday 12 June 2020, 17.00 – 18.45 (BST) Participants: Tali Hatuka (Tel Aviv University), Zizi Papacharissi (University of Illinois-Chicago), Doina Petrescu (University of Sheffield / atelier d’architecture autogerée), Laura Lo Presti (University of Padua) Reclaiming the Cultural Commons Saturday 13 June 2020, 13.00 -14.45 (BST) Participants: Sepake Angiama (Institute for International Visual Arts-London), Gavin Grindon (University of Essex), Ella McPherson (University of Cambridge), Pelin Tan (Bard College) All recordings are available on: https://www.youtube.com/user/crasshpublicity

Modern technology - and the enhanced access it provides to information about human rights abuses - has the potential to revolutionise human rights reporting and documentation, as well as the pursuit of legal accountability. However, these new methods for information gathering and dissemination have also created significant challenges for investigators and researchers. The capture and dissemination of content often happens haphazardly, and for a variety of motivations. For this content to be of use to investigators it must be discovered, verified, and authenticated. These skills have therefore become critical for human rights organisations and human rights lawyers. This panel, marking the launch of Digital Witness - the first textbook dedicated to open source investigations - brings together leading experts in the open source movement, discussing what the future holds for the use of open source techniques in human rights investigations. Sam Dubberley, head of the Evidence Lab in Amnesty’s Crisis Response Programme, is joined by Yvonne Ng of WITNESS and Jeff Deutch of Syrian Archive to discuss the challenges of archiving social media content depicting human rights abuses, how this practice allows for the preservation of cultural memory, and how it might lead to justice for victims through legal mechanisms. Alexa Koenig, executive director of the Human Rights Center and a lecturer at UC Berkeley, is joined by Lindsay Freeman, Senior Legal Researcher at UC Berkeley, and Ella McPherson, Senior Lecturer in the Sociology of New Media and Digital Technology at the University of Cambridge, to discuss their hopes and fears for the future of open-source investigations. Digital Witness is the first book to cover the history, ethics, methods, and best-practice associated with open source research. It is intended to equip the next generation of lawyers, journalists, sociologists, data scientists, other human rights activists, and researchers with the cutting-edge skills needed to work in an increasingly digitized and information-saturated environment. For more information about Digital Witness and to purchase a copy, head to this link: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/digital-witness-9780198836070

David talks to Ella McPherson about whether digital communication is making it easier or harder to hold human rights abusers to account. What has been the impact of the social media revolution on reporting human rights violations and does anonymity help or hinder the pursuit of justice?Talking Points:Human rights activism is about analyzing information, processing it, and turning it into evidence.New technologies such as smartphones and messaging services have fundamentally changed the process of information gathering.Analysis has also changed. For example, Google Earth or new forms of modeling can help activists verify reports.Technology has also widened the human rights project. Many groups, including Amnesty International, now outsource some forms of analysis to amateurs. This allows them to process far more information and gives concerned citizens a way to get involved.For a few years, the story about technology and human rights was mostly positive, but there are drawbacks too.Activists had an early adopter advantage (e.g. civilian witness videos), but states are starting to catch up.Technology makes it easier to organize, but it also makes activists more visible and trackable.Today, many activists are limiting or opting out of digital communications.New developments such as “deepfakes” also make it harder to verify information. States can sow doubt by flooding the zone with misinformation. Anonymity in human rights reporting is a mixed bag because it runs against our social understanding of how to produce knowledge.Anonymously provided information may alert fact finders to a problem, but it will rarely be sufficient.Knowing where information comes from is important in the verification process.Unfortunately, this means that vulnerable people are more likely to be silenced.Mentioned in this Episode:Amnesty International’s digital verification projectAnd their open-source investigationsThe Forensic Architecture agency at Goldsmiths, University of London Further Reading: “Anatomy of a Killing:” the BBC uses open-source information including Google Earth to identify and verify a horrifying video circulating on social mediaWhat are “deepfakes” and can we still trust what we see?On blockchain and deepfakesWhat happens when war crimes are recorded on social media?Set your alarms… for Thursday, when David talk to Matthew Taylor about whether more deliberation could remedy some of the defects in contemporary democracy. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

How did Facebook get to be so powerful and what, if anything, can we do to take some of that power back? David talks to John Naughton about the rise and possible fall of Mark Zuckerberg’s social media monolith. Talking Points:Facebook is a data extraction company claiming to be a social network.If the service is free, your data is the product.Advertisers, not users, are Facebook’s real customers.How do we reconcile this reality with the fact that people value it as a public service?In some parts of the world, Facebook has become the internet.People who wouldn’t be able to afford data charges can access the internet for free via the Facebook app.If you are a monopoly platform for information, what kind of responsibility do you have?2018 has been a tough year for Facebook, but is it really vulnerable?Investigative reporting has revealed the darker side of the social network.So far, they’ve been pretty inept at handling these scandals.This is creating a morale problem, which could affect their ability to recruit.But the company’s services have inserted themselves into people’s daily lives.We don’t have the right analytical framework for analyzing how Facebook does harm.Facebook has become the corporate extension of Mark Zuckerberg’s personality.He has absolute control, and this means that his vision dominates.Zuckerberg appears to believe that the world would be better if everyone were on Facebook.For Facebook, it’s all about growth. What if they embraced a more self-limiting strategy?A massive revolt by a significant portion of people might shift the narrative and cause investor panic.But it’s unlikely that Facebook will be out-competed. The barrier to entry has become too high.Mentioned in this Episode:Carole Cadwalladr’s groundbreaking reporting on Cambridge AnalyticaThe New York Times’ investigation into how Facebook handled revelations about Russian interference in the 2016 electionHow Facebook enabled a genocide in MyanmarFurther Learning:From Gutenberg to Zuckerberg, John’s book about the internet.The New Yorker’s Evan Osnos profiles Mark Zuckerberg.From our archive... David unpacks the Cambridge Analytica story with John and Jennifer Cobbe.Shoshana Zuboff’s new book on the age of surveillance capitalism.The U.S. Senate’s report on disinformation and Russian interference.And as ever, recommended reading curated by our friends at the LRB can be found here: lrb.co.uk/talkingSet your alarms… for Sunday, when David talks to Ella McPherson about... See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In an age where states and even ordinary people have the power to produce fake news, how do we verify whether a supposed human rights abuse is real or staged online? Human rights and digital media expert Dr Ella McPherson explores this problem and her work to address it. (NOTE: Dr McPherson is currently on maternity leave, but she graciously agreed to be on this episode. This interview contains some minor background noises from Ella's baby.)

A brief introduction to CGHR's research themes, by theme leads Dr Ella McPherson (Human Rights in the Digital Age), Dr Thomas Probert (The Right to Life), Dr Devon Curtis (Violence, Conflict and Peacebuilding) and Dr Sharath Srinivasan (Politics, Digital Technologies and the Media).

CGHR Research Associate Dr Ella McPherson describes the work of the Centre under the research theme Human Rights in the Digital Age, at an event held in May 2015 to celebrate CGHR's first five years.

After a two-day meeting to discuss a report to the UN Human Rights Council, CGHR hosted an international panel of experts for a discussion of the uses of ICTs in the protection of human rights, particularly focusing on the opportunities and challenges associated with their potential for fostering greater accountability for violations. The panel: Christof Heyns – UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Christina Ribeiro – Investigation Coordinator, Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court Christoph Koettl – designer and editor of Amnesty International’s Citizen Evidence Lab Eliot Higgins – creator of the Brown Moses blog, investigating the conflict in Syria Ella McPherson – CGHR Research Associate (chair)