I was in the university bookshop today and was thrilled to see several of the books are already in for one of my courses this autumn, DIKULT106: Culture and Norms in the Information Society. The course consists of three three week units: surveillance, community and identity online, and digital media ethics. Here’s the syllabus. I’m teaching the first unit, and I’m quite excited: I’ve assigned Orwell’s 1984 (after Alex Halavais mentioned on Facebook that most of his students hadn’t read it) and Cory Doctorow’s Little Brother. As you can see, the bookshop has ordered them in both English and Norwegian as it’s an international group of students.

One book the bookshop won’t have is Ubiquitous Surveillance, edited by David Parry and one of the “living books” the Open Humanities Press has published online. It consists of an introduction and a curated collection of online materials, and may actually change while I’m teaching it.

I would like to have students request their data from some entity (Facebook, their mobile phone provider etc) and writing about that for the 2000 word essay they have to write for this unit, but I think it would take too long. The 30 day legal deadline means students wouldn’t actually get their data until after they’re supposed to have written their first drafts. Norwegian mobilen.no will generate an email requesting your data from your mobile phone provider, so that’s very easy. I think I’ll encourage them to do this in any case.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

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 […]