This Biohacker Is Trying To Edit His Own DNA And Wants You To Join Him

This Biohacker Is Trying To Edit His Own DNA And Wants You To Join Him

Allyson Laquian / BuzzFeed News

Josiah Zayner, CEO of the biohacking-promoting startup the Odin, held up a syringe. “This will modify my muscle genes to give me bigger muscles,” he told a packed room at a biotech conference in San Francisco in early October.

In front of dozens of onlookers, he leaned against a table and jabbed the long needle into his left forearm. Then he took it out, wincing a little, and added, over applause and chuckles of disbelief, “I’ll let you know how it works out.”

Zayner has made headlines for pushing the boundaries of do-it-yourself genetic experimentation, whether by trying to clean up his gut by inoculating himself with a friend’s poop or brewing glow-in-the-dark beer. This time, the biohacker claims he’s the first person trying to modify his own genome with the groundbreaking gene-editing technology known as CRISPR. And he’s providing the world with the means to do it, too, by posting a “DIY Human CRISPR Guide” online and selling $20 DNA that promotes muscle growth.

But editing your DNA isn’t as simple as following step-by-step advice. Scientists say that injecting yourself with a gene for muscle growth, as Zayner’s done, won’t in fact pump up your arms. Zayner himself admits that his experiments over the last year haven’t visibly changed his body. There are safety risks, too, experts say: People could infect themselves, or induce an inflammatory reaction.

But to Zayner, whether or not the experiment actually works is besides the point. What he’s trying to demonstrate, Zayner told BuzzFeed News, is that cutting-edge biology tools like CRISPR should be available to people to do as they wish, and not be controlled by academics and pharmaceutical companies.

“I want to live in a world where people get drunk and instead of giving themselves tattoos, they’re like, ‘I’m drunk, I’m going to CRISPR myself.’”

“I want to live in a world where people get drunk and instead of giving themselves tattoos, they’re like, ‘I’m drunk, I’m going to CRISPR myself,’” said Zayner, who has a few tattoos of his own, in an interview with BuzzFeed News. “It sounds crazy, but I think that would be a pretty interesting world to live in for sure.”

Under the Food and Drug Administration’s rules, his experimenting appears to be legal — or at least, not illegal. But it’s less clear to what extent, if any, Zayner is responsible for any harm to people who copy him. It’s a gray area that the FDA doesn’t regulate, and may become more pressing as amateur scientists disseminate their experiments, methods, and equipment online.

“Even if you are not liable by legal terms, how responsible are you?” said Eleonore Pauwels, a researcher who specializes in genomics and artificial intelligence at Woodrow Wilson Center, a think tank. “How do you define that in today’s bioengineering and democratized technology setting?”

Zayner’s experiment comes at a time when gene therapies — treatments that alter a patient’s genes to treat or prevent disease — are starting to make their way into mainstream health care. In August, the FDA approved a first-of-its-kind leukemia treatment that involves taking the cancer patient’s own immune cells, genetically engineering them, and putting them back in the patient’s body to strengthen their response against cancer. Another therapy that could be approved early next year would, with just one injection, replace a faulty gene and cure a rare, inherited eye disease.

View Video ›

Josiah Zayner live-streamed his DNA injection at a recent biotech conference.

Facebook: video.php

Some individuals aren’t waiting for Big Pharma. In 2015, Liz Parrish, CEO of a biotech startup called BioViva, told the MIT Technology Review that in Latin America, she had received a highly experimental anti-aging gene therapy. Earlier this year, Brian Hanley, CEO of Butterfly Sciences, also told the Review that he had received DNA interjections meant to stall aging.

While there are lots of different gene-editing techniques in use, according to Pauwels, Zayner may be the first self-practitioner to use CRISPR, the swift and precise technology that has transformed biology in the last few years.

Zayner, who has a PhD in biochemistry from the University of Chicago, told BuzzFeed News that he started self-experimenting with CRISPR in his garage last summer. In one case, he injected the gene for green fluorescence, also known as the gene that makes jellyfish light up. He didn’t start glowing, but he sent a chunk of his skin to a biotech company for analysis, and it confirmed that the gene had taken hold in his cells.

“There are aspects of what he’s doing that people need to be really, really careful about.”

The Odin, Zayner’s startup, just started selling a molecule that disables a gene that inhibits muscle growth, so the end result — or at least the intended one — is bigger muscles. This kind of material is already available through other companies that sell DNA supplies. (Within the last two weeks, Zayner says he’s sold about 10.)

But Dana Carroll, a biochemist and CRISPR expert at the University of Utah, said the experiment is unlikely to work as Zayner suggests, pointing out that the gene is most influential when muscles are being developed early in life.

“When your muscles are already developed and you’re sitting there with mature muscles, there’s not a lot you can do to make them bigger and stronger other than exercise,” he told BuzzFeed News. “So he’d be better off exercising than injecting himself.”

Carroll isn’t too worried that people who follow Zayner’s instructions and use his materials will seriously hurt themselves. “I don’t think a great deal of harm can be done,” he said. “To do real, effective genome-editing, it’s going to require a more sophisticated laboratory and more sophisticated materials than the ones he’s providing,”

But he noted that people injecting themselves at non-sterile environments at home might open themselves up to infection. Repeated injections might cause the body to have an inflammatory reaction. And it could be dangerous if they tried to alter a gene for something other than muscle growth.

“There are aspects of what he’s doing that people need to be really, really careful about,” Carroll said.

Josiah Zayner injects himself with DNA in his garage last year.

Via youtube.com

Asked for comment on Zayner’s project, an FDA spokesperson said that in general, if a scientist wants to test an unapproved drug in humans, they must notify the FDA beforehand.

Pauwels says that a scientist is required to get approval to conduct research on humans — but not when the research subject is themselves, as in Zayner’s case. “That is a blind spot in regulation,” she said.

Zayner is known for testing the FDA’s limits in the past. Last December, BuzzFeed News reported that, in response to the agency’s scrutiny, the Odin toned down its marketing of a DNA kit that it originally said was a tool for making glow-in-the-dark alcohol.

This time, Zayner has carefully tried to steer clear of the agency’s ire. The DNA for muscle growth is sold with a disclaimer: “It is not injectable and not meant for human use.” Still, chances are that curious customers are likely to follow Zayner’s example and inject it into themselves to see what will happen.

Zayner also says his “DIY Human CRISPR Guide” is free speech. He isn’t trying to cure a disease, nor telling others how to cure themselves.

Pauwels said that Zayner is toeing the line. “As soon as you don’t make any health claims and don’t assess risks and benefits, you are in that gray zone where you are using your First Amendment rights, you’re just communicating,” she said. “That could be an issue that comes under the FDA at some point. We might see more and more phenomena of that kind.”

Zayner says he hasn’t gotten sick from the experiments, and he isn’t worried about it. Is do-it-yourself CRISPR really more harmful, he asks, than smoking, sunbathing, and taking chemotherapy, all of which are legal and socially acceptable activities that damage your genes?

“We should be able to do whatever we want,” he said. “There are a lot of things we do that occur during the normal day that do a lot more damage, probably, than things like CRISPR.”

LINK: DNA Biohackers Are Giving The FDA A Headache With Glow-In-The-Dark Booze

LINK: FDA Slams Fertility Doctor For Marketing ‘3-Parent-Baby’ Technology

LINK: Scientists Are Shocked About How Easy It Is To Tweak Genes In Human Embryos

LINK: Everyone Might Be A Loser In The Gene Editing Patent Fight

Quelle: <a href="This Biohacker Is Trying To Edit His Own DNA And Wants You To Join Him“>BuzzFeed

Here's The Memo Amazon Sent Employees About Its Sexual Harassment Scandal

Amazon Studios head Roy Price poses with Harvey Weinstein in June 2017.

Getty Images

This morning, Amazon sent an email to its employees regarding the allegations of sexual harassment and assault surrounding film mogul Harvey Weinstein and ensuing allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct of Amazon Studios head Roy Price, who was suspended on Thursday.

The email, sent by the company’s senior VP of Business Development Jeff Blackburn and obtained by BuzzFeed News, condemns Price’s actions and casts doubt on the future of Amazon Studio’s two projects in development with the Weinstein Company. According to the Associated Press, Amazon's two projects with The Weinstein Co. include a series with Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner and another with filmmaker David O. Russell.

“Amazon does not tolerate harassment or abuse of our employees or our business partners. If a concern is brought to our attention, we investigate it quickly and thoroughly,” the memo reads. It also instructs employees to immediately report any sexual harassment to managers, HR business partners, Amazon’s legal department, and an internal Amazon ethics hotline.

The memo comes after numerous allegations of misconduct inside Amazon Studios. Yesterday actress Rose McGowan tweeted accusations at CEO Jeff Bezos, and The Hollywood Reporter published allegations of Price's sexual harassment and misconduct.

Blackburn notes that the company “cannot discuss the specifics of investigations that we conduct regarding the behavior of individual employees,” but that Amazon expects to make decisions on both Price’s situation as well as Amazon Studio's relationship with Weinstein’s production company. “We are also reviewing our options with the two projects we have with The Weinstein Co,” Blackburn writes.

Here’s the full memo:

Team,

The news coming out of Hollywood over the past week has been shocking and disturbing — and unfortunately we are a part of it. It’s sad and very disappointing to me.

Amazon does not tolerate harassment or abuse of our employees or our business partners. If a concern is brought to our attention, we investigate it quickly and thoroughly. Sometimes we will hire an outside investigator to ensure impartiality. I’d like to emphasize, that at any time, if you have any concerns related to harassment or abuse at Amazon, please immediately report the incident to your manager, your HR business partner, the legal department, or the Amazon Ethics Hotline (in the U.S., [redacted]).

I recognize that you may have questions as a result of the recent media reporting, but please understand that we cannot discuss the specifics of investigations that we conduct regarding the behavior of individual employees. As you know, Roy Price is on leave of absence for an indefinite period of time. I want to thank Albert for stepping up in the interim to lead the org. We are also reviewing our options with the two projects we have with The Weinstein Co. The team is moving as quickly as possible to close on a resolution.

I remain incredibly optimistic about the future of Amazon Studios and what we have planned in FY-18 and beyond. We need to ensure that our focus remains on our customers, and that we are executing on their behalf. Thank you for your dedication and commitment to our creators and talent, who are making some of the very best content available on TV and in theaters all over the world.

As always, please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Jeff

Quelle: <a href="Here's The Memo Amazon Sent Employees About Its Sexual Harassment Scandal“>BuzzFeed

What Is Nameflaming? How Chelsea Clinton And Sean Spicer Got Owned

HBO / BuzzFeed News

There's a new thing happening on Twitter in which people getting yelled at in quote-tweets are fighting back. We're calling it “nameflaming” and it happens when a person changes their Twitter display name to mock a scoldy quote-tweeter. Here is the nameflame in action:

On Thursday, Chelsea Clinton was nameflamed after she scolded a Twitter user for using a picture of Donald Trump’s 11-year-old son Barron in an apparent joke.

That user, @spookperson, told BuzzFeed News his display name change was “a pretty common” prank on the social network, which introduced the “retweet with comment” feature in April 2015. Asked why they nameflamed Clinton, @spookperson responded, “She retweeted me accusing me of something completely asinine, and well, because it's fun.”

Sean Spicer was nameflamed by @IllegalTroy, who destroyed him in response to a snarky quote-tweet.

Sean Spicer was nameflamed by @IllegalTroy, who destroyed him in response to a snarky quote-tweet.

The former White House press secretary quote-tweeted @IllegalTroy noting disgraced movie producer Harvey Weinstein has donated money to Democratic politicians. About 10 minutes after Spicer shared his tweet, @IllegalTroy changed his display name to “sean eats turds.”

Spicer has not yet deleted the tweet which still lives on in his feed.

Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the phenomenon from BuzzFeed News.

Some Twitter users have long pestered the company with requests for a feature that would allow them to edit their tweets. For @spookperson and @IllegalTroy, nameflaming demonstrates why that might be a bad idea. Editing tweets could lead to “trolling, manipulation of news and information, public officials revising earlier statements that would have been public record, etc.,” @spookperson said.

@IllegalTroy expressed similar concerns. “I remember seeing people talking about that idea and someone brought up the possibility of far-right trolls using an edit feature to make normal people look like they're saying things they weren't,” they said.

Clinton, who has more than 2 million followers, clearly wasn’t in on the joke.

Clinton, who has more than 2 million followers, clearly wasn’t in on the joke.

“‘Clinton killed Tupac’ a new conspiracy theory I hadn't heard…Thank you for laughter!!” she tweeted to @spookperson, prompting them to change their display name to “CLINTON SHOT BIGGIE.”

When accused by Twitter users of not knowing the difference between Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G., the former first daughter appeared confused.

When accused by Twitter users of not knowing the difference between Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G., the former first daughter appeared confused.

Eventually after being nameflamed multiple times, Clinton gave up trying to explain what happened to her followers.

Life lesson: To avoid the nameflame, screenshot everything.

Quelle: <a href="What Is Nameflaming? How Chelsea Clinton And Sean Spicer Got Owned“>BuzzFeed

A New Study Says This Fertility Test Isn’t Accurate, But Companies Plan To Keep Selling It

Nataliaderiabina / Getty Images

Despite a new study that shows some fertility tests do not accurately predict a woman’s chances of getting pregnant in her thirties and forties, a handful of businesses say they will keep selling the tests.

The study cast doubt on increasingly popular tests that are sold by startups and fertility clinics on the premise that certain hormonal levels can reveal a woman’s “ovarian reserve,” or the number of eggs remaining in her ovaries. These tests, which are one part of the burgeoning fertility-testing market, appeal to women anxious about their diminishing chances of getting pregnant.

But three businesses that sell the type of test scrutinized by the study, including two San Francisco startups and one of the most well-known fertility clinics in the US, told BuzzFeed News when contacted that their tests can still be helpful for many women.

One of them is Future Family, which was cofounded by a former SolarCity executive and launched this summer. It sells a $149 “Fertility Age Test” that it says “will give you insight into your current and future fertility.” Modern Fertility, which just graduated from the Silicon Valley startup incubator Y Combinator, is taking pre-orders for a similar test that’s also $149. Its female founders bill it as “the first comprehensive fertility test you can take at home–to give women the context we wished we had ourselves.” And Shady Grove Fertility Clinic, a network of East Coast clinics, promises that its ovarian reserve test, which costs $325 without full or partial insurance, means “no more guessing.”

Future Family's website

Via futurefamily.com

The study, published this week in the scientific journal JAMA, followed 750 women between ages 30 and 44 for up to a year. They didn’t have a history of infertility, and had been trying to conceive for three months or less. Researchers analyzed their blood and urine for hormones commonly used to measure ovarian reserve — AMH, FSH, and inhibin B — and followed the women for up to a year. Women who had biomarkers that indicated diminished ovarian reserve weren’t less likely to conceive, the researchers found, compared to those with normal-seeming biomarkers.

“These tests are a great measures of ovarian reserve, how many eggs you have, but they don’t work to predict a woman’s reproductive potential,” Anne Zweifel Steiner, an author of the study and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told Vox.

This isn’t the only study to question the accuracy of these tests. A 2015 paper also found that AMH levels didn’t correlate with predicting fertility.

Still, companies contacted by BuzzFeed News defended their tests that screen for AMH and FSH, and confirmed that they would keep selling them. They also pointed out that the tests take into account other factors, including age, to give women an understanding of their fertility.

Koya79 / Getty Images

Eric Widra, Shady Grove’s medical director, noted that the JAMA paper studied women without a history of infertility. It also did not address IVF. But “decades of research have demonstrated that ovarian reserve is the best predictor, other than age, for treatment outcomes IN PATIENTS WITH INFERTILITY,” she wrote to BuzzFeed News. Shady Grove provides services like in vitro fertilization and embryo-freezing to women and couples who have trouble conceiving naturally.

Asked for research that supported its ovarian reserve test, a Shady Grove doctor, through a spokesperson, cited a 2010 study that found that the FSH hormone was one of several factors that predicted if a woman could get pregnant after doing IVF. The doctor also cited a study from more than a decade ago that found that ovarian reserve tests had a “modest-to-poor” ability to predict whether women could get pregnant in IVF, and “are therefore far from suitable for relevant clinical use.”

The San Francisco startups that sell ovarian reserve tests say their tests aren’t necessarily just for women struggling to conceive; instead, they’re meant for women who want a general picture of their fertility over time and aren’t necessarily trying to start a family right away.

Modern Fertility's website

Via modernfertility.com

“We're reviewing this new study with our clinical advisors and trying to access the raw data in order to further analyze the findings,” Afton Vechery, cofounder of Modern Fertility, said over email. “The vast majority of research in the field has repeatedly shown that these biomarkers provide a better picture of future fertility than just a woman's age.”

Vechery pointed to a 2008 study that examined a much smaller group of women — 50 — than the one in the JAMA study. It looked at their biomarkers before they stopped having their periods, also known as menopause, and during their transition into menopause. The study found that low levels of the AMH hormone, and to a lesser extent higher FSH levels, predicted when they would stop menstruating. The study didn’t explicitly look at whether their hormonal levels were linked to whether they got pregnant.

Lynn Westphal, Future Family’s medical advisor, said that she agrees with the study’s findings that certain hormones aren’t an absolute predictor of a woman’s ability to get pregnant. Many factors determine that, she pointed out, including age. But she said that the Fertility Age Test can still provide useful information to women about their bodies, especially for those who aren’t thinking about getting pregnant yet.

It “will help women approach potential future fertility issues with those results in mind — instead of waiting to determine those levels once a woman is already struggling to get pregnant naturally or with fertility treatments,” she said in a statement.

LINK: Egg-Freezing And IVF Are Tech’s Hottest Perk

LINK: There’s A New Way To Pay For IVF, But No Guarantee It’ll Pay Off

LINK: 9 Facts About Fertility You Should Learn In Your Twenties

Quelle: <a href="A New Study Says This Fertility Test Isn’t Accurate, But Companies Plan To Keep Selling It“>BuzzFeed

#WomenBoycottTwitter Takes Off In Protest Of Twitter's Speech Rules

Twitter is being hit with a boycott Friday following the company's decision to briefly restrict actor Rose McGowan's account earlier this week.

The boycott — which calls for a one-day break from Twitter using the #WomenBoycottTwitter hashtag — is being held in response to Twitter's speech rules, which many joining the boycott claim are disproportionately silencing women. More than 126,000 people have tweeted the #WomenBoycottTwitter hashtag so far.

A number of boycotters posted tweets detailing the harassment they've been subject to on Twitter, saying that while the platform left those instances unaddressed, it did take action on McGowan's account, which was suspended late Wednesday after she tweeted a private phone number.

Protest organizers welcomed men as well, and some joined the boycott.

In response to McGowan's restriction, Twitter took the rare step of breaking with its policy against commenting on individual accounts to explain what happened. And Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey pledged “to do a better job at showing that we are not selectively applying rules.”

The boycott is taking place at a time of immense public skepticism directed toward big tech platforms. Twitter, Google, and Facebook are being called to testify in front of the House and Senate Intelligence committees next month regarding the roles their platforms played in Russia's campaign to disrupt the US 2016 presidential election and its aftermath. And the positive attitude that's long existed towards these companies now appears to be dissipating.

Over the past year, Twitter has worked to improve its anti-abuse tools, in an effort to prevent backlash like the one the company currently faces over McGowan's account. As part of those efforts, the company has introduced new ways to punish bad actors, as well as more robust controls, including a mute option for all profiles with default photos.

Still, the company, by its own design, does not have tools that allow it to take action on individual tweets, which is why McGowan's entire account was restricted on Wednesday, leading to the uproar.

“Twitter is proud to empower and support the voices on our platform, especially those that speak truth to power,” a Twitter spokesperson said in a statement to BuzzFeed News on Friday. “We stand with the brave women and men who use Twitter to share their stories, and will work hard every day to improve our processes to protect those voices.

Quelle: <a href="#WomenBoycottTwitter Takes Off In Protest Of Twitter's Speech Rules“>BuzzFeed

The Real Reason Twitter Restricted Rose McGowan's Account Instead Of Just Deleting One Tweet

instagram.com

BuzzFeed News has learned that Twitter's Trust and Safety Team doesn't have the ability to remove or block individual tweets; it can only take action on accounts. That’s why Twitter disabled key features of actor Rose McGowan’s account on Wednesday night after she posted a private phone number on Twitter.

The action disabled McGowan’s ability to tweet, retweet, and like anything on Twitter at a critical moment: She had been using the platform to detail the alleged sexual misconduct of film mogul Harvey Weinstein, and to call for repercussions for such behavior and those who enable it.

When McGowan published a tweet in violation of Twitter's rules, the company's Trust and Safety team's only option was to silence her entire account until she deleted the single tweet. McGowan did so and was initially told she’d have to wait 12 hours for full functionality to be restored, but someone from Twitter apparently intervened and restored her full functionality.

Sources familiar with Twitter’s Trust and Safety operations and the thinking behind its policies say this heavy-handed protocol is intentional. “It's not just a technical bit, it's that's the way the Twitter policy is drawn up,” one former employee told BuzzFeed News.But it’s clear that the policy has major holes in it. After a number of Twitter users expressed shock that McGowan had been restricted while some legitimate trolls and harassers often go undisciplined, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey publicly admitted the company needs to do more explaining when it takes down accounts. “We do need to do a better job at showing that we are not selectively applying rules,” Dorsey said.

For the platform's critics, the McGowan restriction is confirmation of a fundamental disconnect between Twitter's harassment prevention tools and the realities of policing the social network. Many of the company's terms of service rules and abuse prevention tools feel like relics of a different, smaller Twitter, before the service became the beating heart of breaking news and a chaotic political battleground.

The frustration surrounding McGowan’s experience is magnified by countless of stories of Twitter dismissing reports of clear-cut harassment. Though Twitter pledged to do better in 2017, BuzzFeed News has compiled dozens of instances of valid reports of harassment that were dismissed as not violating Twitter’s rules. Similarly, Twitter’s enforcement of its rules continues to be inconsistent and its justifications for taking or not taking action are equally opaque. Earlier this month, when conspiracy theorist Alex Jones tweeted out a graphic, unconfirmed image of the alleged Vegas shooter’s body in a pool of blood, Twitter kept the photo up — adding a sensitive image tag — under its “newsworthiness” clause. The social network gave the same “newsworthiness” reason for not intervening when president Trump tweeted late last month at North Korea, a gesture the country called “an act of war.” While each situation is unique, critics of the platform have viewed Twitter as grasping for reasons to find leniency in some cases while being exceptionally quick to suspend accounts in other instances.

Twitter declined to comment.

Some observers feel the company should rethink the system. “What would Twitter have to lose in completely blowing up their whole approach to trust and safety?” a former Twitter employee told BuzzFeed News. “It’s not more transparency, it’s the fucking rules. The interpretation of the rules and clarity of the rules. I don't see what the company would have to lose at this point by completely re-drafting the policy.”

One consideration for Twitter is the company doesn’t want to be seen as making editorial decisions, a person with knowledge of the company’s Trust and Safety team told BuzzFeed News.

But silencing an entire account until a tweet is removed instead of removing that tweet itself could also be Twitter’s way of rationalizing that it’s not really removing that content. And in this case, the system it designed blew up in its face.

Quelle: <a href="The Real Reason Twitter Restricted Rose McGowan's Account Instead Of Just Deleting One Tweet“>BuzzFeed

How Big Tech Helped Create The Myth Of The Virtual Reality Empathy Machine

How Big Tech Helped Create The Myth Of The Virtual Reality Empathy Machine

On Monday, cartoonish versions of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook head of social VR Rachel Rubin Franklin took to the platform to demonstrate Spaces, part of Facebook’s push to make VR fun, accessible, and on Facebook. They did this by “teleporting” into Puerto Rico, currently a disaster zone, to trade high fives and news about the company’s disaster-relief efforts, their bobblehead avatars incongruous with the wreckage behind them.

Facebook/Ainsley Sutherland

The backlash was swift.

But the impulse to illuminate humanitarian crisis using virtual reality wasn’t new. True believers love to tout virtual reality’s capacity as an “empathy machine,” an intimate, immersive, and human medium capable of transmitting human experience like no medium before it. Hunger in Los Angeles, VR forerunner Nonny de la Peña’s recreation of an emergency at an LA food bank, famously caused a user to cry as the headset was pulled off her face. In 2016, Oculus founder Palmer Luckey (who later left the company some time after his involvement in pro-Trump troll group “Nimble America” was exposed by the Daily Beast) even went so far as to extol the virtues of a VR future in which poor people could have everything wealthy people have…inside VR.

“Everyone wants to have a happy life,” Luckey told Wired in 2016, “but it's going to be impossible to give everyone everything they want …. Virtual reality can make it so anyone, anywhere can have these experiences.” At this point, technologists have used virtual and augmented reality to transport users into disaster zones, homeless encampments, date rape scenarios, and various additional sites of human suffering. (So have I.) It’s hard to get through an entire VR conference or pitch without hearing about empathy.

The “empathy machine” concept first reached the mainstream in a TED talk with VR guru and producer Chris Milk. In a presentation from 2015, Milk displayed a project, Clouds Over Sidra, which follows a young girl through a day in her life at a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan. The project is so canonical that Andrew Bosworth, head of AR/VR at Facebook, invoked it in response to the Spaces snafu.

Milk argues in his TED talk that because VR makes you feel as though you are sitting on the ground with Sidra, your attitude towards others will change. Presence, the logic goes, leads smoothly to empathy. Simply being there with Sidra in virtual reality is enough. It’s a nice thought, but it’s a leap of faith that allowed the industry to take a shortcut to proving its capacity for social impact and garnering mainstream appeal.

It helps, as always, to follow the money. Virtual reality faces two problems: first, the sexual harassment and assault scandals that have dogged it for years, and second, the pressing need to find users beyond gamers with $1,000-plus desktop computers. Empathy is a deus ex machina that conveniently solves both problems. Demonstrating that VR can be an engine for deeper understanding of the global human condition, and not just a vehicle for games and porn, isn’t just good PR — it’s an expansion of the number of potential users for the technology, and a salve for large companies like Facebook and Google that have made significant investments in the field but don’t want gamer culture dragging them down.

So VR has turned to journalism, documentary, nonprofits, and international development. By supporting media makers with storytelling experience, perhaps this technology can grow beyond its origins in fantasy gaming-rigs. And not all VR journalism is disaster porn: There are plenty of examples of more nuanced experiences that make use of the immersive qualities of the technology to augment a story with a physical or sensory element. After Solitary and 6×9, for example, both make good use of the headset to convey the isolation and captivity of solitary confinement.

Still from After Solitary

After Solitary / Via emblematicgroup.com

But VR content that takes users to disaster zones or on voyeuristic journeys into extreme poverty is of limited utility. The ideal, quantifiable outcome for many producers of these projects is donations. The United Nations VR group knows this, and is building an app that lets you donate without leaving a VR application. Is the success of such endeavors due to the novelty of VR? And how much longer before shock-jock-y VR filmmakers stream from disaster zones for Bitcoin tips unrelated to humanitarian goals?

Google Cardboards distributed to the UN General Assembly meeting during a discussion of refugees.

Via unvr.sdgactioncampaign.org

That said, there might be some truth to this “empathy machine” concept, though not in the way funders and audiences expect.

Empathy describes the process of how we go about understanding that other people have minds like our own. This concept, from social psychology, also has found some support from neuroscience, with the discovery of mirror neurons, which fire both when we perform an action and when we see an action being performed by another. However, although we know that something happens in us when we observe others and imagine their mental states, we don’t know what that something is. Empathy is the process, not the outcome. Though it is often linked simply to positive feelings and behaviors, we can also use empathy to more effectively cause pain, like a skilled bully.

The VR industry is operating with a muddy, unclear, superficial definition of empathy, one that is forgiving to truisms like “standing in another person’s shoes.” It’s also a definition that makes sense to a platform like Facebook, which offers connections and transparency and would prefer it if these characteristics eventually led to a “good” outcome. They don’t, and this misunderstanding of empathy results in product videos like the Facebook Puerto Rico clip, and elides the differences between reporting and voyeurism. One lesson we can take away from these missteps is that presence is not empathy, nor is emotion itself empathy. A better working definition might be that empathy arises when we ourselves change in relation to an object, person, experience — not just when we feel bad, or when we send money — but when we develop a new relationship to ourselves informed by that experience.

Empathy is the process, not the outcome.

The first wave of VR theory in the 1990s was not so explicitly tied to empathy as an end goal. Many of these artists and writers were concerned with “malleable body boundaries” and “new technologies of corporeality” — they wanted VR to create cyborgs, expanded consciousness, and new definitions of what it meant to be human. Maybe contemporary VR needs to let go of empathy as a goal, and start using it as a technique. Notes on Blindness, made as a VR accompaniment to a film of the same name, literally creates a visual language that emulates how someone with heightened aural senses perceives the world. In one section of this piece, the world appears and disappears around you, leaving visible only objects that are currently emitting a sound. It conveys an instability of environment that is deeply unfamiliar to sighted people, while still using a visual medium to do it.

This experience succeeds because it uses that process of empathizing — trying to understand what goes on in the minds of others — while it confounds our expectations around our own bodies, around what sight is. We emerge from it quiet and dry-eyed, hearing our world differently.

Ainsley Sutherland is a Boston-based media researcher and technologist, and 2015-16 BuzzFeed Open Lab Fellow.

Quelle: <a href="How Big Tech Helped Create The Myth Of The Virtual Reality Empathy Machine“>BuzzFeed

Twitter Would Like You To Know It Is Committed To Being More Transparent

On Wednesday night Twitter briefly suspended actress Rose McGowan after a series of tweets criticizing actors – including Ben Affleck – who she suggested knew about film mogul Harvey Weinstein's alleged serial sexual assault and harassment and remained silent.

The company was quickly pilloried for suspending McGowan's account, with many suggesting the social network was silencing the voice of a victim of sexual harassment. When reached by journalists from numerous outlets, including BuzzFeed News, Twitter offered its boilerplate response: it does not comment on individual accounts for to privacy reasons.

Later on, after numerous angry tweets from celebrities and others, Twitter clarified its reasoning, explaining McGowan was briefly locked out of her account for tweeting a phone number — a violation of Twitter's rules. Twitter pledged to do better in such situations, noting “we will be clearer about these policies and decisions in the future.”

For close observers of Twitter's opaque harassment rules and its inconsistent enforcement of them this is a familiar dance. That's because Twitter wants everyone to know it is committed to transparency. It is also committed to committing to being committed to transparency.

Twitter affirmed its commitment to transparency 4 times last month in a blog post summarizing its Russian election interference testimony before congress. Sen. Mark Warner described Twitter’s presentation as “inadequate” in almost every way.

Twitter affirmed its commitment to transparency 4 times last month in a blog post summarizing its Russian election interference testimony before congress. Sen. Mark Warner described Twitter's presentation as "inadequate" in almost every way.

That same month, when BuzzFeed News presented the company with 27 explicit examples of harassment, Twitter replied with its boilerplate statement. And company co-founder Biz Stone promised the company would be more transparent.

This is likely because Twitter has a history of committing to being more transparent.

Like in 2015, when Dorsey apologized to developers for Twitter’s past restrictions of third-party apps and pledged to be more transparent.

Like in 2015, when Dorsey apologized to developers for Twitter's past restrictions of third-party apps and pledged to be more transparent.

Similar to the kind of transparency the company promised in 2015 when Twitter began making federal campaign contributions

Similar to the kind of transparency the company promised in 2015 when Twitter began making federal campaign contributions

That is because transparency is valuable.

That is because transparency is valuable.

Quelle: <a href="Twitter Would Like You To Know It Is Committed To Being More Transparent“>BuzzFeed

Natural Disasters Are Tech's Big Chance To Save The World — And The Ultimate Product Demo

On Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg took to his social media platform to issue an apology for — and a defense of — his decision to broadcast a cartoon version of himself exploring the virtual landscape of hurricane-devastated Puerto Rico. The idea, it would seem, was to demonstrate potential use cases for virtual reality and Facebook Spaces, including virtually visiting storm-ravaged communities.

But the public didn’t respond well to the image of a tech billionaire “visiting” a disaster zone from the comfort of Silicon Valley. The moment in which Zuckerberg’s curly-haired, smiling avatar virtually high-fives another Facebook employee’s avatar before a backdrop of flooded streets — “you can get the feeling that you’re really in a place,” his avatar says in the broadcast — is particularly jarring.

In his Tuesday apology, Zuckerberg said his “goal here was to show how VR can raise awareness and help us see what's happening in different parts of the world.”

“I also wanted to share the news of our partnership with the Red Cross to help with the recovery,” he wrote. “Reading some of the comments, I realize this wasn't clear, and I'm sorry to anyone this offended.”

But Facebook is far from the only major Silicon Valley player to insert its brand and products into the recent string of natural disasters in the United States. Following not only the crisis in Puerto Rico, but also hurricanes, floods, and wildfires in the continental US, companies including Tesla, Airbnb, Uber, Lyft, and Google have jumped at the chance to showcase what they’re capable of in a crisis.

“Silicon Valley sees suffering as a problem they can solve.”

These initiatives appear to be undertaken out of an earnest desire to help, and at least some of them actually did. But tech’s tycoons, who badly want us to believe they and their companies exist to make the world a better place, often have trouble seeing past their own good intentions. There’s a gap between how they perceive themselves, and how the public that’s being sold their products perceives them. These natural disasters have allowed companies to not only boost their brands and earn PR points, but to demonstrate their innovation at a time when people are no longer blindly accepting the notion that technology is a force for good.

“I guess it's sort of the logical conclusion of tech solutionism,” tech CEO and commentator Anil Dash told BuzzFeed News. “Every startup will think any social issue or natural disaster is best solved with their new product.”

Like Zuckerberg, Elon Musk experienced a minor backlash after one of his attempts to aid hurricane victims. Following the flooding and damage that Hurricane Irma brought to parts of Florida, Tesla quietly told customers it would flip a software switch and extend the battery life for Teslas in affected areas. Longer battery life is something all the cars are capable of, but it’s an additional feature that (on certain models it no longer produces) Tesla throttles unless you pay for it. Tesla owners knew this, but the general public did not, and people were surprised and disturbed by the idea that in 2017, you can buy a high-tech, state-of-the-art car, but still not fully control it.

The public responded more favorably when Musk offered to help re-electrify Puerto Rico, which lost 95% of its power grid following Hurricane Maria. CNBC called his idea for bringing Tesla-made battery packs and solar panels to the island “a game changer.” Architectural Digest called it “incredible.”

Like so many of Musk’s propositions, his proposal to save Puerto Rico started off with a tweet. By Friday, he was on the phone with the governor of Puerto Rico making plans, and then back on Twitter announcing that Tesla would divert resources to producing batteries for Puerto Rico — never mind that it’s already behind on production goals for the latest Teslas and its employees are in what Musk cheerily describes as “production hell.”

Reached for comment, a Tesla spokesperson said Musk’s tweets were the only statement the company would be making on the subject. But the image of a future Puerto Rico that runs on clean, sustainable, affordable energy thanks to Elon Musk is already burned into the collective memory. And this shimmering possibility was crafted by someone who — after acquiring Solarcity last year — just so happens to be a solar panel salesman.

For Zuckerberg and Musk both, the ongoing crisis in Puerto Rico is a chance to play hero and showcase the real-world impact of the technologies they've dedicated their lives to developing. While solar panels and batteries will go a lot further than virtual visits, both initiatives undergird the people-connecting, planet-saving self image these companies strive to project.

“The issue,” web designer and tech writer Paul Ford told BuzzFeed News, “is that Silicon Valley sees suffering as a problem they can solve.”

One of big tech’s more far-fetched proposals for aiding Puerto Rico’s recovery is Google’s idea for bringing cellular data to the island. The gambit made headlines after Google got permission from the FCC to use its experimental balloons, a moonshot project with the company known as Project Loon, to beam down connectivity. But Google can’t actually deploy the solution until it finds a telecom provider on the island to work with. “To deliver signal to people’s devices, Loon needs be integrated with a telco partner’s network — the balloons can’t do it alone,” a spokesperson said in a statement. But as of Wednesday, no such company had come forward and no deadline for executing the project had been named.

By far, the tech company that has received the most credit for its post-disaster relief program is Airbnb. Airbnb has encouraged its hosts to offer free housing during crises since 2012, an initiative it formalized under the name “Open Homes” in 2016. Through the company, hosts have housed roughly 2,800 people for free in 2017 alone.

The program costs Airbnb virtually nothing, but without fail gains them a warm round of congratulatory press with every new wildfire, earthquake, and flood. Airbnb even turned on the feature following Trump’s travel ban, vowing to facilitate housing for 100,000 refugees by the end of 2017 and raising the bar for progressive corporate opposition to the president’s controversial immigration policies.

In addition to helping people in crisis find a place to stay, Airbnb Open Homes exemplifies Airbnb’s core marketing pitch — that by inviting strangers into our homes, not only will travel become more affordable and pleasurable, but life itself will become more meaningful. Put more succinctly, Open Homes is great for Airbnb’s brand, something that its Super Bowl commercial suggests it’s willing to pay a lot of money to maintain.

It also brings new potential hosts to Airbnb’s platform. While the majority of people who have participated in the program were already hosts on the platform, some were not. When you sign up to host evacuees or refugees for free on Airbnb, you’re directed to create an Airbnb listing profile much as you would if you were hosting for money. Though you don’t automatically become a paid Airbnb host after creating a free listing, the listing you created continues to live on your host profile page, and you’re still setting up an account, sharing your info, and familiarizing yourself with how to design a hosting profile.

The parade of tech initiatives in response to these recent natural disasters is an attempt to reanimate the myth that technology is progress, and progress is good.

Lately, the idea that technology exists as a force for good — to connect people, to save the planet — has been looking rather threadbare, especially in light of recent revelations around the role social media companies played in the presidential election. Zuckerberg himself recently walked back his initial reaction to these allegations, acknowledging that Facebook was more influential during the election than he was previously willing to admit. The parade of tech initiatives in response to these recent natural disasters is an attempt to reanimate the myth that technology is progress, and progress is good.

Macej Ceglowski, leader of a national grassroots tech activism group called Tech Solidarity that sprung up after President Trump’s election, said tech companies aren’t helping displaced disaster victims as much as they’d like to think. “Puerto Rico is an example of the government failing its citizens, who have no Federal representation. These tech companies have enormous lobbying clout, but choose instead to promote their own science projects in a moment of crisis,” he told BuzzFeed News.

Ceglowski specifically cited Musk, whose promise to help Puerto Rico he sees as a continuation of the billionaire’s history of “claiming he can build infrastructure (tunnels, high-speed rail, mars colonies) at a fraction of the price, without delivering.”

“There is the same failure here to connect with reality in any useful way,” Ceglowski said. “They’re taking advantage of a tragedy to spin their sci-fi dreams.”

The reality is, the government is struggling to handle disaster recovery on its own, especially given the rate at which disasters are currently occurring. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is advertising a desperate need to hire more workers as 85% of its workforce is currently deployed in recovery efforts across the country. Back in August, former FEMA spokesperson Rafael Lemaitre told BuzzFeed News that partnerships with private companies like grocery stores and Walmart are a vital part of recovery efforts across the country. Lemaitre worked on FEMA’s public-private partnership program under the Obama administration and now works for IEM, a company that facilitates such partnerships. He said tech companies — especially those with presences on the ground — could be a big help.

“Before Katrina, people thought it was government’s job or the fire department’s job. But particularly since Katrina, we have to look beyond just government to incorporate citizens themselves and the private sector to play a part in this,” he said. “When it comes to Uber, Airbnb, or those types of companies, they do have a role.”

And tech companies have done things that are genuinely helpful, for which victims were genuinely grateful. Facebook donated $1.5 million to two aid organizations on the ground in Puerto Rico, and sent employees there to work with the NGO NetHope on bringing connectivity back to the area. Tesla started shipping free battery packs to Puerto Rico as soon as the hurricane passed. After hurricanes hit Texas and Florida, Uber and Lyft made monetary donations to local organizations and gave away free rides to shelters, paying for driver time without charging passengers. And apps like Zello and Nextdoor were essential for communicating during recovery efforts in Texas and Florida.

But every well-meant gesture — every free room, free ride, or free phone call — bolsters the public image of these corporations as the savior we should turn to whenever a new, seemingly insurmountable problem arises, even as the public controversies around these companies, and the unchecked role they play in our lives, grows.

“Tech thinks of itself as problem solvers,” said Nathan Jurgenson, a sociologist who works for Snapchat. “And disasters are an opportunity to sell their solutions.”

Quelle: <a href="Natural Disasters Are Tech's Big Chance To Save The World — And The Ultimate Product Demo“>BuzzFeed