Mediaboss Marketing

ACT leader David Seymour also voted against the legislation, but only because of ACT's policy to oppose Government Bills unless the Government asks for support, in which case he would consider doing so.

The purpose of the proposed law is to "ensure the security of all involved in APEC 2021, as well as the security of media and members of the public".

The legislation - which would expire at the end of November 2021 - says foreign protection officers would be able to "apply for the authority to carry and possess a specified weapon during the leaders' event period, along with a permit to import the weapon".

Ghahraman said a time when New Zealand is reforming domestic gun laws it "doesn't make sense to move the other way for this meeting".

"We know that both here and overseas, force is most commonly used against persons of colour, so certain communities are going to be put at most risk."

The Bill's sponsor, Deputy Prime Minister and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, said the temporary law would support New Zealand's security preparations for hosting the event, last held in Auckland in 1999.

"Up to 20,000 visitors are expected throughout the year, including world leaders, ministers and international media," Peters said.

"This Bill will ensure the New Zealand Police has the resources it needs, as well as provide temporary security and safety measures around key meeting locations during the leaders' event."

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern confirmed last month that APEC will still be held in Auckland, despite the destruction caused by a massive blaze at the New Zealand International Convention Centre.

The Greens' refusal to support the APEC Bill is reminiscent of last month when the party didn't at first support a proposed anti-terror law that would give police the ability to impose control orders on returning Kiwis involved in terrorism.

The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill began in a similar way to the APEC Bill, with Labour, National and New Zealand First supporting it and the Greens opposed.

But negotiations broke down between National leader Simon Bridges and Justice Minister Andrew Little and its first reading was initially delayed.

The Greens were then in a position to negotiate the changes they wanted to the legislation and the Justice Minister was willing to give them want they wanted.

Ghahraman told Newshub the situation is different this time because National decided to support the APEC Bill as a caucus and there were no sour negotiations, therefore Labour and NZ First don't need the Greens' support.

"If the National Party pulled their support, we do have very serious concerns about the APEC Bill as we did about the control orders Bill," Ghahraman said.

But she said it's a bit more black and white this time.

She said the Greens would only support the Bill "if we don't allow restricted weapons held by foreign agents who are not trained by us and don't work in our communities".

"Our position on the APEC Bill is that New Zealand's own security laws and policing are enough."

Read the original post:
APEC 2021: Greens oppose law letting foreign security agents carry restricted weapons - Newshub

A majority of Australians oppose harvesting of their personal information by apps and websites, with three-quarters reporting they are uncomfortable with the on-sale or government provision of their data to businesses.

The Essential poll of 1,075 respondents found that a majority were also uncomfortable with the government providing other agencies with information for national security purposes (58%) or facial recognition to restrict access to content not suitable for children (56%).

The poll found that just 19% of users claim to have fully read and understood the terms and conditions of websites they use and about the same number (18%) say they never read the terms, they just accept them.

Most users are somewhere in between, reading the terms but not understanding the implications (21%) or reading the terms sometimes depending on the website (38%).

The majority of respondents were uncomfortable with commercial platforms selling their data (76%) and the government providing their data to businesses (74%).

About two-thirds of respondents were uncomfortable with the government (66%) or commercial online platforms (65%) offering products and services based on [their] personal information and behaviour.

The most likely to object use of personal information for national security reasons were Greens voters (65%) or other voters for minor parties or independents (70%), with facial recognition for age verification also the most unpopular among those groups.

Across age groups, people aged 18-34 were less likely to report being uncomfortable with all forms of data collection than those aged 35-54 or 55 and above.

The results, released on Thursday, mark the launch of the Australia Institutes new Centre for Responsible Technology, to be headed by the Essential Media executive director, Peter Lewis.

Lewis said the results reflect increased public distrust at the data models at the very heart of the business strategies of big tech organisations like Facebook and Google.

They also show a breakdown of trust in the government to collect information in the public interest, he said. What is most confounding about these results is that the public is uncomfortable with the use of data in the precise ways they routinely consent to it being used.

The centre aims to develop a set of rules and standards to control how organisations handle personal information and to help people make choices about how their information is used.

In July, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission digital platforms report recommended the Privacy Act should be updated to give users greater control over their personal information, the ability to move the data from one company to another, to have the data destroyed and to require greater levels of consent from users before personal information is collected.

In responding to the report, the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, said: There is no option other than to put in place the right regulatory and legislative regime to protect the publics privacy.

What this report finds is that so much personal data is being collected without informed consent, he said.

In October, the joint standing committee on intelligence and security told the government it needs to rethink its plans for a national facial verification database built with photos from passports and drivers licences, citing privacy concerns.

A parliamentary committee is currently considering whether to use facial recognition to verify users age before they can access pornography.

Read this article:
Most Australians oppose data harvesting and sale by apps and websites Essential poll - The Guardian

To prevent this, platforms could end the practice of allowing advertisers to bring external data to their ad systems entirely. The downside is that this would eliminate good uses of these tools in addition to the troubling ones.

Alternatively, platforms could require political advertisers to move away from data opacity and toward data transparency by permitting only certain types of verified targeting lists, such as lists of all registered voters of a certain party in a certain district. More transparency would incentivize good practice, and platforms could take steps to verify audience lists and perform random audits to improve enforcement and ensure accountability.

Second, targeting categories and the advertising auctions and algorithms that deliver ads based on those categories should not make it easy for advertisers to undermine the platforms own stated goals, whether it is Facebooks desire for social cohesion or Twitters goal of healthy discourse. Just as all major platform companies have voluntarily put in place verification processes for political advertising and created political digital ad archives, instead of banning political ads they can set further limits on the categories political advertisers can target (such as geographic region, interests, ideology, race and ethnicity, or gender). Platforms could review their existing categories to ensure they do not enable targeting that can undermine their missions, circumvent community standards or is likely to facilitate illegal activity.

Third, platforms should introduce product solutions that facilitate counter-speech. For instance, when a platform publishes a political ad in its ad archive, it could enable verified rival campaigns to publish ads to the exact same audience. This approach would be a privacy-protective way of ensuring that there is an opportunity for counter-speech, since platforms could enable the functionality without passing audience details or strategic information to rival campaigns.

Finally, companies repeatedly state that political advertising doesnt have a material effect on their bottom line. If thats the case, instead of banning political ads they should put their political advertising money where their mouth is, and commit to donating all revenue from political advertising to nonprofits and researchers focused on election integrity. Or invest that money directly in the development and improvement of their election integrity products.

In the face of intense pressure by the press, activists and policymakers, tech platforms should resist blunt solutions that greatly narrow the possibilities for expression for those vying for public office and contesting public issues. Blanket bans on political ads especially harm those without pre-existing large audiences and challengers to established elites. By putting changes in place that shine a spotlight on targeting practices, we can address some of the worst abuses of political ads technologies, while also leaving space for speech thats critical for a robust democracy.

Daniel Kreiss is a principal researcher at the University of North Carolina Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life and an associate professor at the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media. Matt Perault is the director of Duke Universitys Center for Science & Technology Policy and was formerly a director of public policy at Facebook.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

The rest is here:
Four Ways to Fix Social Medias Political Ads Problem Without Banning Them - The New York Times

Eric Deggans:

Well, I did a piece for NPR.org where I talked a little bit about this, how you can pick the streaming service you actually want.

And one of the things you have to do, I think, is be honest about what you watch. I encourage people to do you know how some nutritionists tell you to figure out a dieting diary to see what you actually eat, write down when you have lunch and dinner.

Well, I expect that you should write down what you watch on television. Don't try to guess what you watch, but actually write down what you watch, so when you watch those "Law & Order" reruns, be honest about what you watch.

And then once you have a sense of what you're watching day to day and week the week, then you can cobble together a strategy for what kind of streaming services will get the most of what you want to watch.

Now, you shouldn't be shy about trying some services and dropping them if they don't work. You can a lot of services have a week free trial. Sometimes, you can try them for a month. You pay $6 or $7 and you get a month's service. And then you can drop it if it's not working.

We're used to the in the past having these TV structures that are pretty permanent. You put up an antenna or you buy cable service or you buy Netflix, and then you don't do anything else, and you just experience whatever that platform delivers to your home.

But now you have more control than ever as a consumer. It means you have to do a little bit more work. You have to do some research. You have to figure out what you want to watch. You have to figure out how much you want to spend on these streaming services, and then you have to try them.

But once you put together an ecology of media outlets, you will be much more satisfied with the media that you're consuming, and I bet you will spend less money.

Read the rest here:
Why more media companies want in on 'streaming revolution' - PBS NewsHour

You may have noticed over the last few days that Facebook has rolled out a change to its lower navigation bar, in order to better align the displayed icons with the on-platform functions which you actually use.

TechCrunch has confirmed that this update also includes a new capacity to more easily change your listed icons, and get rid of those sometimes annoying red dot notifications on each.

In order to remove a tab in this new process, you tap and hold on whichever one you want to action. That will bring up the option to either remove it or turn off the notification dots. You can't remove the News Feed or Notifications tabs, nor the hamburger menu, giving you a couple of tabs to play with as you wish.

Facebook's been working on better personalizing the lower navigation bar since August last year, so you may have noticed it change a few times (as I have). But aside from personal preferences, Facebook has also traditionally used the lower navigation bar to promote its latest options - like Facebook Watch or Marketplace. Now it seems that Facebook's going to give more control back to users on this front, which could help it encourage more activity.

But what I found particularly interesting in this new update - and as you can see in the image above - is that you can delete tabs from your lower navigation bar and not replace them with anything.

As shown in the second screenshot (right), when I removed the 'Marketplace' tab, I was left with just three tabs remaining. I could also remove the Pages tab, leaving me with just two. That's interesting because, as noted, that lower tab is a prime area to promote on-platform activity, and it's somewhat surprising to see Facebook give you the option to essentially remove quick links that can promote more engagement. This may be a bug, but it looks like a feature, and may be something to experiment with.

It's also worth noting that you can control the red notification dots on any tab in your Facebook settings:

While you can also add and remove your lower bar shortcuts via your setting tools.

Giving users more control over their shortcuts and notifications seems like a good move, and it'll be interesting to see if the added personalization actually gets people tapping across to other areas within the app (I checked in on the local news section for the first time in a long time once it appeared on my lower bar).

It'll also be interesting to see if Facebook chooses to add its coming News tab to the lower bar for all users, or if these new customization tools are the new norm.

Either way, some new options to consider to manage your Facebook experience.

More here:
Facebook Adds Option to Control Your Navigation Bar Icons and Notifications - Social Media Today