Mediaboss Marketing

The officers from Indias elite antiterrorism police unit descended after dusk on the New Delhi offices of Twitter, with television news cameras in tow. Their mission: Start an argument over fake news.

The offices sat empty, closed amid Indias devastating coronavirus outbreak. And the police acknowledged that they were there to deliver nothing more legally binding than a notice disputing a warning label that Twitter had assigned to some tweets.

But symbolically, the visit by the police on Monday night sent a clear message that Indias powerful ruling party is becoming increasingly upset with Twitter because of the perception that the company has sided with critics of the government. As anger has risen across the country over Indias stumbling response to the pandemic, the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party have struggled to control the narrative.

As a result, top Indian political leaders have applied increasing pressure on Twitter, Facebook and other platforms that people are using to air their complaints. In doing so, they are following the path of some other countries trying to control how and where messages can spread on social media. In March, for example, the Russian government said it would slow access to Twitter, one of the few places where Russians openly criticize the government.

The police visit illustrates the extent to which state machinery can be instrumentalized by the party in power to curb opposing voices and mishandle the opposition, said Gilles Verniers, a professor of political science at Ashoka University near New Delhi.

Regardless of the clumsy manner in which it was conducted, this raid is an escalation in the stifling of domestic criticism in India, he said.

For example, the police visit was set off by labels that Twitter applied to tweets posted by senior members of the party, called the B.J.P.

Party leaders posted documents that they called irrefutable proof that opposition politicians had planned to use Indias stumbling coronavirus response to tar Mr. Modi and Indias reputation itself.

But Twitter undercut that campaign when it labeled the posts manipulated media. Indian disinformation watchdog groups had said the documents were forged.

In going after Twitter, the B.J.P. focused on one of the main ways people in India pleaded for help as infections began to soar in April and people began to die by the thousands per day. Hospital beds, medicine and supplemental oxygen became precious commodities. Online networks sprang up on Twitter and other social media platforms for volunteers to connect desperate patients with supplies.

The second wave of the coronavirus reached a peak on May 6 414,188 fresh infections. Since then, cases have fallen by nearly half, but the overall death toll, 303,720, continues to rise.

The B.J.P. is no slouch at social media. Under Mr. Modi, it has used social media to spectacular effect, pushing its Hindu nationalist agenda to far corners of the country and to denigrate its opponents.

But as dissenting voices rise, and the B.J.P.s tolerance for dissent grows short, it has used harsher tactics to rein the platforms in.

This month, the government ordered social media platforms, including Twitter, to take down dozens of posts critical of the governments handling of the pandemic.

In February, as a farmer-led protest against agriculture changes captured the public imagination, the company acquiesced to government demands and blocked the accounts of 500 people accused of making inflammatory remarks about Mr. Modi.

Last summer, India banned TikTok, WeChat and dozens of other Chinese apps, citing national security concerns.

Though Mr. Modis government controls the Delhi police, it was not clear on Tuesday that the failed mission at the Twitter office had happened at its behest.

Understand the Covid Crisis in India

A B.J.P. spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A Twitter spokeswoman asked for questions in an email, which went unanswered.

On May 18, a B.J.P. spokesman, Sambit Patra, tweeted the picture of a document he described as plans by the Indian National Congress, the main opposition party, for making the government look bad.

Mr. Patras message was retweeted more than 5,000 times, including by ministers in Mr. Modis government and party leaders.

Harsh Vardhan, Indias health minister, used the hashtag #CongressToolkitExposed to rip into the opposition party.

Its deplorable on their part to attempt to spread misinformation during this global catastrophe just to swell their dwindling political fortunes at the expense of peoples suffering, Dr. Vardhan tweeted.

Except that the plans were fake, doctored on old letterhead, said independent fact-checking organizations and the Congress Party, which filed a police report against Mr. Patra and another B.J.P. leader. Last Thursday, Twitter stepped in, labeling the tweet manipulated media and provoking the ire of government supporters who demanded that the Indian government ban the company.

Many blame the disaster that India is experiencing now on government hubris. While cases were rising in March, Mr. Modi was campaigning for state elections. His government signed off on a religious festival that drew millions of Hindus to the Ganges River banks.

Mr. Modi, who gave regular, rousing national addresses during the first wave of cases, has become less visible during the second wave. Many Indians feel abandoned. With local pandemic lockdowns still in place, rather than take to the streets, protesters are confined to social media.

That space is becoming ever smaller, digital rights advocates and public interest lawyers said.

Last month, while the number of virus infections and deaths skyrocketed, at least 25 people were arrested after hanging posters in Delhi that questioned Indias decision to export vaccines abroad.

The posters were made by the ruling party in Delhi, another party in opposition to the B.J.P., according to a party member, Durgesh Pathak.

In a democracy, to ask a question is not wrong, Mr. Pathak said. I am not abusing anybody. I am not instigating anybody for violence. I am not asking anybody to do any wrong thing. I am asking a question to the prime minister of my country.

Hari Kumar contributed reporting.

View original post here:
Indian Police Visit Twitter Offices as Modi Goes on Pandemic Offense - The New York Times

Facebook and Instagram will give users the choice to hide Like counts on their own posts as well as others posts that appear in their feeds, the company announced on Wednesday.

The move comes after years of criticism that Facebooks platforms and particularly Instagram, which Facebook owns fuel a pressurized and toxic social media environment that damages peoples mental health and body image. Instagram head Adam Mosseri said in a call with reporters that surveys showed the well-being of users didnt change when Like counts were removed and that people didnt use the app less or more. I think we had a sense that we were going to lose users, Mosseri explained. It doesnt look like we are going to.

Users will now have a bit more control over when they see Like counts, but the new features do not represent a major change in how these social networks actually work. Instead, Facebook and Instagram are pushing the decision over how Likes are handled to users themselves, which amounts to another example of how Facebook tends to deflect responsibility for its platforms worst impulses and impacts onto users while making promises of more choice.

The new Like count feature is rolling out on Instagram and Facebook starting today. On Instagram, this means that users will now be able to go into the apps settings and turn off Like counts on other peoples posts. To do this in the app, go to Settings > Posts, where youll see a toggle that, when switched on, hides the Like counts viewable on posts from other people that show up in your feed. The default setting is that Likes are visible, so again, users will have to go into the app and proactively change the setting if they want to discontinue seeing Likes..

Users can also ensure that other people cant see the total number of Likes on their own posts. But thats a little bit harder to do: It doesnt appear that users can hide Likes on all their posts by default. Instead, they have to decide whether Likes should be visible for every single post and proactively turn them off.

Its important to note that the underlying metrics that power Instagram arent changing. Likes and data generated by Like-based activity arent going away, and users will still be able to view how many Likes their own posts are getting, even if theyve hidden those numbers from others. Other metrics on Instagram also remain visible to users, including Instagram story views, the number of comments on posts, and follower counts. Mosseri told reporters that leaving the Like count feature intact but making users decide whether or not to see it allowed the company to reconcile those who value Like counts with those who dont.

You mightve seen that weve been testing different options for a while and this update reflects the feedback weve gotten, Mosseri said in a tweet on Wednesday. We want you to feel good about the time you spend on our apps and this is a way to give you more control over your experience.

Notably, Likes can be a valued source of information for influencers and creators who use the platform regularly.

I see this as a slick decision on the part of Facebook to put the onus of metric visibility on its users; it allows them to shore up what seems to be a superficial commitment to users mental health while allowing creators to continue to drive users and hence data to their platforms, Brooke Erin Duffy, a professor of communications who has studied social media, told Recode in an email. Duffy added that Facebooks decision to leave the choice up to individual users seems like an effort to appease creators and influencers, as well as everyday users, without changing Facebooks core model.

Ultimately, even Mosseri admitted that theres evidence that these changes will not do much to improve users mental health. Instagram has been testing different approaches to the Like feature since 2019 and has said its own studies found that the feature tweak had mixed results.

Some think platforms like Instagram need to look at changes beyond individual tools and features that users must find and change themselves. As Vox reporter Rebecca Jennings wrote in 2019, While generally put forth with positive intentions, these overdue measures ignore the fact that no matter how much Instagram would like to be viewed as a place users feel good about visiting, its entire existence is predicated on reminding people that other people are having more fun than they are.

And despite calls for reforms, its not clear that major, fundamental changes to Facebook and Instagram are coming anytime soon. We should still expect these social networks to continue making incremental changes and adjustments to features, providing users with more options rather than more structural reforms of these platforms. History indicates that this is how Facebook is likely to approach problems.

In March, for example, Facebook published a somewhat wonky Feed Filter feature to allow users to decide for themselves whether they want to see an algorithmically curated or reverse-chronological News Feed, while also insisting that Facebook the company is not particularly responsible for political polarization and extreme content. Other new tools meant to give users a semblance of control include a Favorites Feed, which is meant to allow users to curate their own News Feeds, and a choose who can comment feature, which users are meant to take advantage of to limit potentially unwanted interactions.

None of these features are necessarily bad, but they contribute to the troubling trend: Facebook responds to its toughest structural issues by making small tweaks to the user experience or to specific settings. And then its up to users to tweak those settings and adjust how they use the platform with the hope that, somehow, the bad aspects of Facebook will just go away.

Read more:
Facebook and Instagram will let you hide Likes: How the new feature works - Vox.com

Prince Harry said the media is "desperately trying to control the narrative" about him and Meghan Markle in "The Me You Can't See."

Harry co-created and executive produced the docuseries about mental health alongside Oprah Winfrey for Apple TV+.

In episode five, Winfrey and Harry discussed his and Markle's bombshell interview, during which the couple revealed that the royal family didn't help Markle as she struggled with suicidal thoughts and that a member of the royal family made racist comments about Archie's skin.

She asked Harry if he still "feels controlled" by the media since their interview. The Duke of Sussex said no, adding that he thinks the media is still trying to control the story.

"They're desperately trying to control the narrative because they know that if they lose it, then the truth will come out," he told her. Harry did not specify what truth he was referring to.

The duke then discussed his and Markle's intentions going into the interview with Winfrey.

"The interview was about being real, being authentic, and hopefully sharing an experience we know is incredibly relatable to a lot of people around the world, despite our unique, privileged position," Harry said.

"I like to think we were able to speak the truth in the most compassionate way possible, therefore leaving an opening for reconciliation and healing," he added.

It seemed as though Prince William and Harry made steps towards reconciliation at Prince Philip's funeral, but Princess Diana's biographer warned that it will be some time before the brothers have peace between them.

In "The Me You Can't See," the duke also said that the media and the "firm" worked against Markle together, which contributed to her mental-health issues.

"Before the interview, because of their headlines and that combined effort of the firm and the media to smear her, I was woken up in the middle of the night to her crying in her pillow because she doesn't want to wake me up because I'm already carrying too much," Harry said of Markle. "That's heartbreaking."

Harry went on to credit therapy with helping him and Markle handle the difficulties they've faced since becoming a couple.

"Therapy has equipped me to be able to take on anything," he said. "That's why I'm here now. That's why my wife is here now. Without therapy and without doing the work, we would not be able to withstand this."

In an earlier episode of the series, Harry revealed that Markle helped him realize he needed therapy.

The duke also said that stepping back from the royal family and moving to Los Angeles was "scary," but that he doesn't have regrets about the decision because it's improved his mental health.

"Making this move was really scary," he said. "At every possible opportunity, the forces that were working against us tried to make it impossible."

"I have no regrets. It's incredibly sad, but I have no regrets at all because now I'm in a place where I feel as though I should have been four years ago," he went on to say, adding that his anxiety has decreased since the change.

"I'm now more comfortable in my own skin. I don't get panic attacks. I have learned more about myself in the last four years than I have in the 32 years before that," Harry said. "I have my wife to thank for that."

"The Me You Can't See" is available for streaming on Apple TV+.

See the article here:
Prince Harry says media 'desperately trying to control the narrative' - Insider

Deals are rarely smooth, and an anomaly with Discoverys share price dovetailed with the negotiations. Discoverys stock began to inexplicably rocket in February and March to $75 from $45 because of a convoluted trading scandal involving Archegos, a little-known private investment firm that bet big on Discovery and other companies via derivatives using billions in borrowed money.

With banks forced to buy shares to hedge their spiraling exposure to Archegos, Discoverys market value jumped nearly 60 percent, for no obvious reason to outsiders. But by May, the stock had returned to where it was during Mr. Zaslavs initial approach, and the two sides ultimately forged a deal that gave 71 percent of the new company to AT&T shareholders and 29 percent to Discovery.

Now, the trick was closing it before word could leak out.

One awkward conversation awaiting Mr. Stankey was with Jason Kilar, the former chief of Hulu tapped by AT&T, with great fanfare, just a year earlier to lead WarnerMedia. To mark the occasion of his first anniversary on the job, Mr. Kilar had agreed with AT&Ts blessing to be profiled by The Wall Street Journal. He invited a reporter in late April to interview him on the Warner Bros. lot in Burbank, Calif., unaware that across the country, his colleagues were feverishly working to close the deal.

At some point during the week of May 3, Mr. Stankey dropped the bomb: He informed Mr. Kilar that the company would soon change hands, and it was unclear what Mr. Kilars role might be. The 2,600-word Journal profile of Mr. Kilar, which included a quote from Mr. Stankey, was published on May 14, three days before the deal was announced.

Usually a cheerful presence on Twitter, Mr. Kilar didnt bother sharing the article with his 37,000 followers. By the weekend, Mr. Kilar had retained the entertainment power lawyer Allen Grubman to start negotiating his exit.

A little after 7 a.m. on Sunday, Mr. Zaslav boarded a corporate jet at a small airport on the East End of Long Island, not far from his home, to head to AT&Ts Dallas headquarters to put the finishing touches on the deal. But just over an hour into the flight, word got out through Bloombergs black-and-orange terminal screens: AT&T is in talks to combine content assets with Discovery.

Continued here:
Discovery and AT&T: How a Huge Media Deal Was Done - The New York Times

Dominic Cummings has laid bare the surreal chaos in Downing Street in March last year as the government grappled with the Covid pandemic, portraying the prime minister as obsessed with the media and making constant U-turns, like a shopping trolley smashing from one side of the aisle to the other.

During an extraordinary evidence session to MPs at Westminster on Wednesday, Boris Johnsons former chief aide targeted the prime minister for personal criticism, accusing him of being unfit for the job.

He claimed that Johnson regretted the first lockdown and held out against imposing later restrictions, despite the advice of many people inside Downing Street, and that overall, tens of thousands of people died who didnt need to die.

Cummings told MPs the prime minister had repeatedly said in respect of the first lockdown, I should have been the mayor of Jaws and kept the beaches open, and confirmed reports that in October, Johnson said he would see bodies pile high rather than order a third lockdown.

The general situation in Downing Street was described as an out-of-control movie and, in particularly incendiary claims about Matt Hancock, Cummings said the health secretary had lied to the public and fellow ministers, arguing that amounted to criminal behaviour.

He said that in January and February 2020, as news of the pandemic emerged from Wuhan, ministers and senior officials fell victim to what he described as literally a classic historical example of groupthink in action.

He said the prime minister himself had repeatedly played down the seriousness of the disease, calling it a scare story and comparing it to swine flu. Cummings even claimed officials had deliberately kept Johnson out of emergency Cobra meetings.

Certainly, the view of various officials inside No 10 was if we have the PM chair Cobra meetings, and he just tells everyone, Dont worry about it, Im going to get [Englands chief medical officer] Chris Whitty to inject me live on TV with coronavirus, so everyone realises its nothing to be frightened of, that would not help, actually, serious planning.

He claimed that only in mid-March was an initial plan to pursue herd immunity, by allowing the virus to spread but delaying the peak of the outbreak, belatedly abandoned. Herd immunity was the whole logic of all the discussions in January and February and early March, Cummings told the committee.

In later evidence, Cummings said criticism for poor government communications was largely a factor of bad policy and blamed Johnson for this.

It doesnt matter if youve got great people doing communications if the prime minister changes his mind 10 times a day, and then calls up the media and contradicts his own policy, day after day after day, he said.

After the first lockdown, Cummings said, he and Johnson disagreed fundamentally about the response to Covid, with the prime minister wanting to reopen the economy, a stance Cummings called completely mad.

Many others inside No 10, as well as the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, sided with Cummings, he said, but the PM just wouldnt do what we advised.

He added: Nobody could find a way around the problem of the prime minister, just like a shopping trolley, smashing from one side of the aisle to the other.

He was especially damning about the prime ministers refusal to order a second lockdown in September in the face of firm scientific advice. Cummings said the cabinet was not consulted, and instead of learning the lessons of March, Johnson had continued to rail against the first lockdown.

He didnt think in July, or September, Thank goodness we did the first lockdown, it was obviously the right thing to do. His argument then was, we shouldnt have done the first lockdown and Im not going to make the same mistake again, he said.

Cummings called for the promised public inquiry into the handling of Covid to take place as soon as possible. He said: Tens of thousands of people died who didnt need to die. Theres absolutely no excuse for delaying that. A lot of the reasons for why that happened are still in place.

Discussing the initial response, Cummings described what he called a surreal day on 12 March 2020, as he tried to press the prime minister to change course.

Johnson was repeatedly distracted from Covid matters, Cummings claimed, including by security meetings about whether to join US bombing raids in the Middle East and his partner, Carrie Symonds, going completely crackers over a newspaper story about her dog, Dilyn.

On the evening of the following day, Cummings said the deputy cabinet secretary, Helen MacNamara, walked into the prime ministers office to say: Ive come through here to tell you all, I think we are absolutely fucked. I think this country is heading for disaster. I think were going to kill thousands of people.

He said No 10 had been told of the herd immunity approach and said: We dont even have a plan for burying the bodies.

Cummings was repeatedly dismissive of his former boss Johnson, whom he helped into Downing Street. Fundamentally, I regarded him as unfit for the job, and I was trying to create a structure around him to try and stop what I thought were extremely bad decisions, and push other things through against his wishes, he said.

Asked why he had not resigned when he believed the governments response was failing, Cummings said he had told the prime minister at the end of July that he would leave by 18 December.

He claimed to have told Johnson: This whole situation is chaos; this building is chaos. You know perfectly well that I can get great teams together and manage them, but you are more frightened of me having the power to stop the chaos than you are of the chaos and this is a completely unsustainable position to be in.

He said that, in response, the prime minister had laughingly agreed, saying: Chaos means that everyone has to look to me to see whos in charge.

Originally posted here:
Dominic Cummings says Boris Johnson unfit for job of PM amid Covid crisis - The Guardian