Archive for the ‘Media Control’ Category

How To Dismiss Windows 10 Media Volume Control Pop-up

In Windows 10 when you adjust the volume, a volume pop-up, also know as media volume control overlay, appears in the top left corner of the screen. It is well integrated with recent Chrome and Edge versions and allows you to pause a YouTube video or switch to the next entry in the playlist.

The following screenshot demonstrates the media notification toast:

This useful feature is available in Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge Chromium.

However, plenty of users find this media volume overlay annoying for its big size and long display time. Also, it is not clear how to dismiss it. The pop-up should automatically dismiss after a few seconds. However, sometimes it remains visible for too long, and its display time increases if you hover over it with your mouse pointer.

click on the app name. In this case, it is "chrome.exe".

For a media overlay which includes the album art or an artist photo, you can click on the artist name or on the album art to dismiss the popup.

Finally, if you are not happy to see this media overlay, it can be disabled with a special flag in modern chromium-based browsers.

That's it.

Related posts:

Thanks to Albacore.

Support us

Winaero greatly relies on your support. You can help the site keep bringing you interesting and useful content and software by using these options:

If you like this article, please share it using the buttons below. It won't take a lot from you, but it will help us grow. Thanks for your support!

Sergey Tkachenko is a software developer from Russia who started Winaero back in 2011. On this blog, Sergey is writing about everything connected to Microsoft, Windows and popular software. Follow him on Telegram, Twitter, and YouTube. View all posts by Sergey Tkachenko

The rest is here:
How To Dismiss Windows 10 Media Volume Control Pop-up

Meta Partners with Zefr to Improve its Advertiser Safety Tools – Social Media Today

As it works to provide more options for brands to manage their ad placements across its apps, Meta has announced a new partnership with brand suitability platform Zefr which will better enable advertisers to ensure that their promotions dont appear alongside potentially offensive material, as defined by their own concerns on this front.

Zefr, which has also partnered with TikTok and YouTube on similar initiatives, utilizes advanced AI identification systems, including audio, text, and frame-by-frame video analysis, along with scaled human review, to provide a more accurate and customized brand safety solution, giving more specific placement control to ad partners.

As explained by Meta:

We will work together [with Zefr] to develop a solution to measure and verify the suitability of adjacent content to ads in Feed, starting with small scale testing in the third quarter of this year and moving to limited availability in the fourth quarter.

The partnership will help Meta develop better systems to ensure brand safety, while still maximizing ad opportunity.

Meta additionally notes that its developing internal suitability controls as another means to give advertisers more control over where their ads are shown.

We have begun scoping and building these new controls for Facebook and Instagram Feeds focused on primarily English speaking markets, with plans to test in the second half of the year before rolling more broadly in early 2023. Over the course of the next year, we will expand placement coverage to include Stories, Reels, Video Feeds, Instagram Explore and other surfaces across Facebook and Instagram, as well as expanding to additional languages.

Meta already offers various brand safety tools, including topic exclusions and 'publisher allow' lists, which provide broad-ranging oversight tools for brands. These new options will facilitate more specific control, so that brands can exclude the exact placements they choose, while still reaching as wide an audience as possible.

Brand Safety controls came into focus back in 2017 after YouTube lost millions in ad revenue when publishers started pulling their ads due to them appearing alongside extremist and hate speech content. Meta has also faced various challenges on this front - though its major ad challenges have been more specifically focused on the companys own stances, as opposed to placement concerns.

Meta banned ad placements near NSFW content back in 2013, and has been working to refine its systems on this front ever since. Meta was also the subject of an advertiser boycott in 2020, in protest against the platform's handling of hate speech and misinformation, which further underlined the rising concerns around the companys perceived focus on revenue over safety.

Given this, its important for Meta to continue its development, and these new projects will help to improve its placement tools and options.

See the original post:
Meta Partners with Zefr to Improve its Advertiser Safety Tools - Social Media Today

Meet The Man Who Whispers In Putin’s Ear – Forbes

Yuri Kovalchuk seen at a meeting of President Dmitry Medvedev with Russian and foreign shareholders of the National Media Group in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, Oct. 6, 2011. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko, Pool)

Marina Ovsyannikova interrupted Mondays evening news on Russian TVs Channel One when she appeared behind the on-air anchor holding a sign that read NO WAR, and Dont believe the propaganda. They lie to you here. Authorities whisked away the news producer and detained her for over 12 hours. She was hit with a fine and, according to Russian state media, is now under investigation for spreading false information. I wanted to show the world that the majority of Russians are against the war in Ukraine, Ovsyannikova told CNN. If convicted under Russias new law that prohibits expression deviating from government-approved truth, she faces up to 15 years in prison.

Russian President Vladimir Putin looms like a dark shadow over the broader Soviet-like crackdown on accurate information that, for example, prohibits the word war from being used by Russian media. (Its called a special military operation whose goal is to rid Ukraine of Nazis.) Putins general in the disinformation war is Yuri Kovalchuk, the 70-year-old oligarch described by the U.S. government as Putins close advisor and personal banker in 2014 U.S. sanctions against him. The two men have been almost inseparable in the last couple of years, according to one Kremlin watcher. Kovalchuk, through his holding company National Media Group, has a grip on what news Russians see and hear. He owns stakes in Channel One and several of Russias most influential TV channels. In December, his company acquired a piece of VK, Russias largest social media company.

Kovalchuk and Putin are tight. They own homes in the same exclusive Ozero dacha cooperative and Kovalchuk hosted the wedding of Putins daughter in 2013, according to the Panama Papers. In the last two years, Kovalchuk has established himself as the de facto second man in Russia, the most influential among the presidents entourage, according to Russian journalist Mikhail Zygar, author of a book on Putins inner circle.

When people say Russian state television, they really mean Kovalchuk television, says Anders slund, an expert on Russias oligarchy. Putin doesnt trust the state sufficiently. He wants his closest man to control television.

Kovalchuk, who Forbes estimates is worth $1.3 billion, created National Media Group in 2008 in partnership with another oligarch, Alexei Mordashov. Alina Kabaeva, widely considered Putins girlfriend, is the companys chair. In addition to Channel One, National Media Group controls popular Russian television channels 5TV, REN-TV (formerly an opposition network to Putin) and entertainment channel CTC, as well as stakes in newspapers, digital media and content studios.

The National Media Group is one of the two biggest players in the Russian media market along with state-owned VGTRK, says Ilya Yablokov, a journalism professor at the University of Sheffield in England.

The National Media Group and Kovalchuk did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Since the February 24 invasion of Ukraine, media coverage on Russian TV networks have echoed themes in Putins speeches. This week, pundits and anchors have pushed conspiracy theories about Ukraine developing biological weapons with U.S. support. Ukraine and the Biden administration have denied those charges.

Kovalchuk is known for his anti-liberal and anti-Western views and his conspiracy thinking, says Tatiana Stanovaya, a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Moscow Center and founder of newsite R.Politik. People like Kovalchuk understand Putins priorities and goals, she said. They can feel it, and try to adapt media policy to such needs.

In December 2021, Kovalchuks National Media Group acquired a controlling stake in Russian social media giant VK from oligarch Alisher Usmanov. Following the ownership change, VK fired much of its existing management and promoted Kovalchuk relatives, according to independent Russian news site The Bell. Today, VK is being used by the Kremlin to recruit mercenaries for Russias war on Ukraine, the BBC reported.

VK is playing an enormously influential role in keeping the population under control, spreading the narratives that are favorable to the Kremlin and punishing those who use the social network for spreading alternative views, says Yablokov, the journalism professor. VK is now as open as it could be to Russian domestic intelligence services.

Kovalchuk and Putin became close in St. Petersburg during the 1990s, when Kovalchuks Rossiya Bank supported Putins political rise. Then, as now, Kovalchuk operated behind the scenes. David Lingelbach, a professor at the University of Baltimore, worked in Russia during the 1990s in banking and venture capital. On several occasions, Lingelbach met with Putin in his capacity as first deputy mayor of St. Petersburg to facilitate investments from foreign investors. I met most of the other people that Putin brought into his inner circle Igor Sechin, Dimitri Medvedev, Alexey Miller but I never once saw or had any awareness of Kovalchuk, Lingelbach says. In hindsight, Putin was leading a second sort of private economic life, which he was developing with Kovalchuk.

Once Putin was elected president in 2000, Kovalchuk used Rossiya Bank to build his media empire, powered by Putins relentless drive to kill negative press. In 2000, Putin arrested media baron Vladimir Gusinsky on charges of fraud and forced him to sell his media properties, including his crown jewel REN-TV, to state-owned Gazprom. (Gusinsky, who denied all charges, has since disappeared from public view; the European Court of Human Rights declared in 2004 that accusations against Gusinsky were politically motivated.) Putin then arranged for Gazprom to sell those media assets, as well as its insurance business Sogaz and other financial assets, to Rossiya Bank at a bargain price.

These transactions were part of a larger transfer of wealth taking place during the 2000s, from oligarchs and the Russian state into the pockets of Putin and his cronies. Over $60 billion worth of state-owned assets were funneled through Gazprom to Kovalchuks Rossiya Bank and entities owned by other Putin allies, the Rotenberg brothers and Gennady Timchenko, between 2004 and the end of 2007, according to a 2008 investigation by Russian opposition figures Vladimir Milov and Boris Nemtsov. (Nemtsov was shot to death on a Moscow bridge in 2015.)

In Putins initial term, the discussion was that all non-core assets of monopolies including Gazprom should go to open markets to create a competitive environment, Vladimir Milov, who has since left Russia, told Forbes. However, Putin completely turned that path around and transferred these assets to his cronies. Gazprom received nothing, the taxpayers received nothing, and instead of reform we shifted towards establishing a system of control under a handful of Putins cronies.

As Russias unprovoked war on Ukraine continues, Kovalchuks importance is primed to grow. Oligarchs with assets in Europe and the U.S. are reeling under Western sanctions, and Putin is reportedly closing ranks, purging some of his top spies and military officials in response to Russias faltering war effort.

Kovalchuk is someone with whom Putin can really share his life, his visions, Stanovaya says. And he trusts him.

Originally posted here:
Meet The Man Who Whispers In Putin's Ear - Forbes

While guarding against misinformation on social media, mechanisms are not protecting trusted information – Cochrane

Cochranes Instagram posts have been removed, their Instagram account has been shadow banned, and now a Cochrane Library Twitter post about winning a prestigious award for trustworthy information has been tagged as misleading. These incidents highlight the realities of Cochranes call against misinformation while protecting trusted sources.

Cochranes health evidence syntheses are recognised as the international gold standard for high quality, trusted information. Cochrane Library reviews are used to support global and national health guidelines and policy. We advocate for evidence-informed healthcare and make our trusted evidence accessible and available to all. One way we do this is using social media to reach different audiences.

This week the prestigious Harding Prize for Useful and Trustworthy Communication was jointly awarded to by the ONS Covid Infection Survey and the Cochrane Review of Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. The Harding Prize, run in association with Sense About Science and the Science Media Centre, and is supported by Sir David Harding, goal is to draw attention to the unsung task of 'informing and not persuading' and celebrate those who were doing it well.

The Harding Prize judges noted that the Cochrane Infectious Disease Groups review of the evidence for the use of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 used clear language, communicated straightforwardly, and with balance that that there was no benefit to hydroxychloroquine which outweighed the side effects and that trials of it should be stopped. This review was done with rigorous methodology and communicated with clarity and directness, which enabled policy makers, journalists, and the public to discuss and make decisions based on the best evidence.

It was particularly ironic that a celebratory tweet from the Cochrane Library about winning an award for useful and trustworthy communication was tagged by Twitter for being misleading. This tag does not allow it to be replied to, shared, or liked.

Social media platforms are starting to act on mis/disinformation by tagging posts that are deemed misleading and penalizing repeat offenders, says Sylvia de Haan, Cochranes Head of Advocacy, Communications and Partnerships. Its likely our misleading tag from Twitter was due to the hydroxychloroquine hashtag. However, misleading posts are still using this hashtag without restrictions, while a post from the Cochrane Library, a leader in health evidence synthesis, is blocked. This incident, like other recent examples, illustrates how the system is imperfect. It underscores the urgent need to not only guard against misinformation on social media but have better mechanisms to protect trusted information.

This latest social media blunder comes after the recent launch of the Cochrane Convenes Report which highlights the parallel challenges of generating trust in evidence and countering mis/disinformation and calls for concrete action to address these issues, says Cochranes Editor in Chief, Dr Karla Soares-Weiser. There is an ongoing issue with how you hold those deliberately creating and sharing mis/disinformation to account and how you form accreditation and approval for official sources of evidence that have met certain quality control standards. We need to make it easier for people to access trustworthy information and that includes on social media.

Cochrane is a proud supporter of WHOs call to action on infodemic management and is currently collaborating with science communicators at Lifeology and the Association for Healthcare Social Media. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this recurrent issue with social media platforms directly and to work with others interested in supporting science communication.Write to us at cochrane@cochrane.org, and consider signing our call to action on trusted evidence for all in health emergencies.

Go here to read the rest:
While guarding against misinformation on social media, mechanisms are not protecting trusted information - Cochrane

Bombay High Court rules against BCCI in the IPL media rights issue – India Today

"Due to the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and also other exigencies of work, there was a delay in pronouncing judgment," said justice BP Colabawala before quashing and setting aside an arbitral award which upheld rescission of media rights by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to World Sport Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. in relation to the Indian Premier League (IPL) for all territories other than Indian sub-continent.

Justice Colabawala had extensively heard the issue in 2021 and reserved it on 18 March 2021. The entire issue pertained to a tender issued by BCCI in 2007 for a period of 10 years starting from 2008 to 2017 regarding media rights for IPL. WSGI was the successful tenderor which was awarded the global media rights of IPL for approximately one billion USD.

Since WSGI was not a broadcaster but only a trader in Media Rights, it entered into pre-bid negotiations with MSM which had a broadcasting network in India.

During these negotiations, MSM, for its own commercial reasons, instead of entering into a sub-licensing Agreement with WSGI, desired to enter into a direct Media Rights License Agreement [MRLA] with BCCI for India rights till 2012 for USD 275.40 Million. Another MRLA was executed between BCCI and WSGI for India rights for a sum of $550 million and a 'rest of world' rights for $92 million till 2017.

However, after the first IPL happened to be a resounding success, on March 14 2009, BCCI terminated MRLA with MSM after which the India rights of IPL were reverted back to BCCI. The Board wanted to re-auction/re-sell the India Rights for the IPL for the entire period of 2009-2017 for a higher License Fee.

In light of this, BCCI at the outset entered into a Deed of Mutually Agreed Termination (DMAT) with WSGI in 2009. With this agreement, the composite MRLAs entered into by BCCI with WSGI came to be terminated. According to WSGI, it agreed to a mutual termination of the first MRLA only to enable BCCI to receive an enhanced License Fee for the India Rights for the period 2009-2017 on the condition that the India Rights for the period 2009-2017 would be licensed to WSGI, or its nominee - WSGM, thereby enabling WSGI to realize a premium for relinquishment of its India Rights for the period 2013-2017. The other condition that was laid down was that BCCI would reinstate WSGI's RoW Rights for the period 2009-2017 by entering into a fresh MRLA with WSGI on the same terms and conditions as was recorded in the first BCCI-WSGI MRLA.

BCCI later alleged that all agreements of 2009 including the DMAT formed part of a fraudulent composite transaction which gave them the right to terminate the second MRLA with WSGI. BCCI alleged that all the agreements were executed only for the purpose of diverting funds to WSGM, a sister concern with WSGI, which showed that both companies were complicit. The fraud alleged by BCCI was that the monies under the facilitation deed were actually due to BCCI and since WSGI companies had indulged in fraud, BCCI was entitled to rescind the MRLA for RoW rights.

The rescission was challenged by WSGI in arbitration. Out of the 3-members on the tribunal, 2 members upheld the decision of BCCI to rescind the agreement.

This majority award was challenged in High Court by WSGI. WSGI contended that by virtue of the Agreements entered into in 2009, BCCI benefited to the tune of approximately ?1791 crores. Failing to consider this enormous benefit that inured to BCCI and the fact that BCCI retained the same, was a fundamental error on the arbitral tribunal, WSGI submitted.

Justice BP Colabawalla accepted the submission and opined that the benefit which BCCI received by virtue of the agreements ought to have been considered. "It is trite law that a party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. A party cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold, fast and loose or approbate and reprobate. When one party knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, it is estopped by denying the validity and binding effect of that contract on him. Once a party takes advantage of any instrument, he must accept all that is mentioned in the said document," the Court emphasized.

Justice Colabawalla observed that failing to consider this fundamental issue which goes to the root of the matter, rendered the arbitral award susceptible to challenge as it clearly suffers from a patent illegality and is therefore liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

Justice Colabawala also noted that the majority award failed to explain why BCCI was entitled to the facilitation fee. He also deduced after perusing the minority award that huge chunks of important evidence was missed out in the majority award. "Such an Award with the greatest of respect to the arbitrators who passed the majority award, cannot be allowed to stand," said Justice Colabawala.

Visit link:
Bombay High Court rules against BCCI in the IPL media rights issue - India Today