Via the Norwegian YouTubeBlogg (which seems a good way to track Norway-related YouTube content) I found this video, posted by Datatilsynet as part of a campaign where they’re trying to make teens more aware of their privacy rights and of surveillance in everyday situations.

There’s a website for the campaign too: dubestemmer.no, which means “you decide”. Lots of comparisons – “you have the right to shut the door to your room” encouraging more awareness of privacy issues. I wonder whether it works? I find it striking that this is something we have to teach teens. Will they reject privacy as an odd historical concept? Privacy wasn’t a common right a few hundred years ago, or even a few decades ago, when the idea of a teenager having a room of her or his own would have been extraordinary. Or will there be a revolution against the extreme panopticon of surveillance today?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “privacy campaign targeting teens

  1. laxpol

    Government of Canada Invests in Arts, Culture, and Heritage in Toronto http://tinyurl.com/2cczw8

  2. Emma Jenkin

    Did you mean to send out this link http://bit.ly/e4Tg6N instead of this one http://tinyurl.com/2cczw8 @MPJamesMoore ?

  3. Eric Chow-Hughes

    RT @MPJamesMoore: Government of Canada Invests in Arts, Culture, and Heritage in Toronto http://tinyurl.com/2cczw8

  4. Alex H

    RT @MPJamesMoore: Government of Canada Invests in Arts, Culture, and Heritage in Toronto http://tinyurl.com/2cczw8

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]