Mediaboss Marketing

August 4, 2017 by Terry Flew, The Conversation Our internet is becoming increasingly fragmented thanks to local laws. Credit: c12/Shutterstock

Both The Economist and WIRED are worried about the "splinternet". The UK research organisation NESTA thinks it could "break up" the world wide web as we know it.

What is this awkwardly named idea? It's the concept that someone's experience of the internet in Turkey, for example, is increasingly different from their experience of the internet in Australia.

Travellers to China, in particular, will be familiar with this phenomenon. Thanks to the government's tight control, they have to use Baidu rather than Google as their search engine, and are unable to access Facebook or news sites like The Economist and the New York Times.

We have a growing splinternet because of regional content blocking and the need for companies to comply with diverse, often conflicting national policies, regulations and court decisions.

This tension is particularly apparent when it comes to the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter. These platform companies have users in almost every country, and governments are increasingly insisting that they comply with local laws and cultural norms when it comes to access and content.

The internet was never truly open

The idea of the internet as an independent, global and unregulated platform has always been something of a fiction. Even at the height of techno-futurist rhetoric about its potential to transcend national boundaries in the late 1990s, there were always exceptions.

The Chinese Communist Party understood from the start that the internet was simply a new form of media, and media control was central to national sovereignty and its authority.

But the splinternet refers to a broader tendency to use laws and regulatory powers within territorial jurisdictions to set limits on digital activities.

A threshold moment was Edward Snowden's revelations in 2013. The documents he shared suggested that the US National Security Agency, through its PRISM program, had been collecting information from global users of Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Yahoo.

In countries such Brazil, whose leaders had had their communications intercepted, this accelerated moves towards developing national internet control.

Brazil's Marco Civil da Internet law, for instance, now requires global companies to comply with Brazilian laws around data protection.

Is this a bad thing?

Until now, much of the appeal of the internet has been that it's driven by user content and preferences, and not by governments.

But people are paying more attention to hate speech, targeted online abuse, extremism, fake news and other toxic aspects of online culture. Women, people of colour and members of certain religions are disproportionately targeted online.

Academics such as Tarleton Gillespie and public figures such as Stephen Fry are part of a growing rejection of the typical response of platform providers: that they are "just technology companies" intermediaries and cannot involve themselves in regulating speech.

A UK House of Commons report into "hate crime and its violent consequences" noted that:

"there is a great deal of evidence that these platforms are being used to spread hate, abuse and extremism. That trend continues to grow at an alarming rate but it remains unchecked and, even where it is illegal, largely unpoliced."

If we say online hate speech "should be policed", two obvious questions arise: who would do it and on what grounds?

At present, content on the major platforms is largely managed by the companies themselves. The Guardian's Facebook Files revealed both the extent and limitations of such moderation.

We may see governments become increasingly willing to step in, further fragmenting the user experience.

Fair play for all

There are other concerns at play in the splinternet. One is the question of equity between technology companies and traditional media.

Brands like Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Netflix and Amazon are eclipsing traditional media giants. Yet film, television, newspapers and magazines are still subject to considerably greater levels of country-specific regulation and public scrutiny.

For example, Australian commercial television networks must comply with locally produced material and children's content regulations. These mostly do not apply to YouTube or Netflix despite audiences and advertisers migrating to these providers.

It is increasingly apparent to media policy makers that existing regulations aren't meaningful unless they extend into the online space.

In Australia, the 2012 Convergence Review sought to address this. It recommended that media regulations should apply to "Content Service Enterprises" that met a particular size threshold, rather than basing the rules on the platform that carries the content.

Do we want a splinternet?

We may be heading towards a splinternet unless new global rules can be set. They must combine the benefits of openness with the desire to ensure that online platforms operate in the public interest.

Yet if platform providers are forced to navigate a complex network of national laws and regulations, we risk losing the seamless interconnectedness of online communication.

The burden of finding a solution rests not only on governments and regulators, but on the platforms themselves.

Their legitimacy in the eyes of users is tied up with what Bank of England chair Mark Carney has termed for markets is a "social licence to operate".

Although Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and others operate globally, they need to be aware that the public expects them to be a force for social good locally.

Explore further: Facebook, Google crack down on hate speech: EU

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Facebook, Google and other US internet giants have sharply boosted efforts to clamp down on online hate speech, a top European Union official said Thursday.

Britain's interior minister is traveling to California to press Internet firms including Facebook, Twitter and Google to stem the flow of extremist content online.

Facebook said Tuesday its ranks of monthly active users had hit the two billion markmeaning more than a quarter of the world's population is on the giant social network.

Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube announced Monday the launch of an anti-terror partnership aimed at thwarting the spread of extremist content online.

Facebook said Tuesday that it deleted about 66,000 posts a week in the last two months as the social media giant cracks down on what it deems to be hate speech.

Internet giants Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube are not doing enough to fight online hate speech despite "moving in the right direction", the European Commission said on Tuesday.

It has been argued that the ability of humans to recognize social signals is crucial to mastering social intelligence - but can robots learn to read human social cues and adapt or correct their own behavior accordingly?

The small, ornate figurines look like relics of a bygone age: a serene Buddha's head from the Tang dynasty, or a collection of stone-faced soldiers from the Qin era.

Research scientists have achieved a new world record in tape storage their fifth since 2006. The new record of 201 Gb/in2 (gigabits per square inch) in areal density was achieved on a prototype sputtered magnetic tape ...

The near-supersonic rail system known as hyperloop has passed another key milestone on its path to become reality, the US startup Hyperloop One said Wednesday.

Researchers are looking to insects - specifically cicadas - for insight into the design of artificial surfaces with de-icing, self-cleaning and anti-fogging abilities.

High-speed images of a common laser-based metal 3-D printing process, coupled with newly updated computer models, have revealed the mechanisms behind material redistribution, a phenomenon that leads to defects in printed ...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Read more from the original source:
The 'splinternet' may be the future of the web - Phys.org - Phys.Org

Snopes creator David Mikkelson has secured half a million dollars to keep the iconic fact-checking website Snopes afloat, thanks to a judges ruling in an ongoing court battle.

Mikkelson cannot be removed as chief exec of Snopes.com, while the disputed $500k will be released to the firm that controls Snopes, Bardav Inc.

Proper Media does not have standing to seek removal of Mikkelson. Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to prove fraudulent acts, wrote Judge Judith Hayes of the San Diego Superior Court in her tentative ruling, published late yesterday.

The judge also ruled that Proper Media, the ad firm which is in dispute with Bardav and which had withheld the $500k, could continue with its claim for breach of contract against Bardav. Vincent Green, one of Proper Medias five directors, is accused by Proper of conspiring with Mikkelson to block the rest of Proper Medias directors from being able to seize full control of Bardav and thus Snopes.

In addition, the source code and templates for Snopes.com will remain under control of Proper Media, despite Mikkelson applying for them to be transferred to Bardav.

Snopes, as all internet users know, is the original fact-checking website. It mostly debunks viral rumours, including such tales as cats being accidentally fired at jet engines during bird strike tests and social media sites demanding upfront payments unless gullible users forward on a particular message.

As we reported in July, Snopes is in trouble thanks to a battle between two companies claiming ownership of the iconic website. Its parent company, Bardav, is being challenged by its advertising partner Proper Media for control of the business.

Proper Media, while placing ads on Snopes and collecting the revenue, was said to be withholding at least $500,000 from Bardav. Proper claims ownership of 50 per cent of Snopes on the basis that Mikkelsons ex-wife sold the firm her stake in the site when she and Mikkelson divorced in 2016. Mikkelson himself owns the other half, which is not in dispute.

Barbara Mikkelsons stake, the newspaper reports, was split between Propers five directors in varying proportions. Proper Media claims that its directors shareholdings amount to making it a beneficial owner of shares in Snopes, entitling it to a seat on Snopes board. Mikkelson says that the five individuals each hold minority stakes and no board seat is due.

The case continues, with more hearings due to take place later today.

PROPER MEDIA LLC VS BARDAV INC is being heard in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

Sponsored: The Joy and Pain of Buying IT - Have Your Say

See the original post here:
Snopes lawsuit latest: Judge orders disputed cash can flow to fact-checking site - The Register

Maybe John F. Kelly can actually do it. If so, he will be the first.

Politico reports that the new White House chief of staff plans to restrict the flow of information to President Trump including news media reports in the hope of keeping the boss on a more even keel. Here's a bit from reporter Josh Dawsey:

When new White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly huddled with senior staff on his first day at work, he outlined a key problem in President Donald Trumps White House that he planned to fix: bad information getting into the presidents hands.

Kelly told the staff that information needed to flow through him whether on paper or in briefings because the president would make better decisions if given good information.

Kelly's diagnosis makes perfect sense, but others have tried and failed to tame Trump by monitoring his media diet.

If candidate Trump was upset about unfair coverage, it was productive to show him that he was getting fair coverage from outlets that were persuadable, Sam Nunberg, a former campaign adviser, told Politico in February.

Politico's Tara Palmeri wrote at the time that the key to keeping Trumps Twitter habit under control, according to six former campaign officials, is to ensure that his personal media consumption includes a steady stream of praise.

Okay. But the idea that Trump's Twitter habit has ever been under control is laughable. Maybe these campaign officials know something the rest of us don't that Trump's tweets would have been even more inflammatory if not for their interventions.

We'll probably never know about tweets that Trump didn't send. If his staffersmanaged to him out of trouble even a few times, then their efforts were worthwhile. But no one has been able to consistently prevent Trump from stirring up controversy.

Part of the problem is that in a White House composed of competing factions, people invariably try to advance their agendas by presenting Trump with material which may or may not be reliable that promotes their worldviews.

Politico all over this story reported in May on advisers' penchants for strategically feeding dubious information to the president. This was one example, described by reporter Shane Goldmacher:

Current and former Trump officials say Trump can react volcanically to negative press clips, especially those with damaging leaks, becoming engrossed in finding out where they originated.

That is what happened in late February when someone mischievously gave the president a printed copy of an article from GotNews.com, the website of Internet provocateur Charles C. Johnson, which accused deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh of being the source behind a bunch of leaks in the White House.

No matter that Johnson had been permanently banned from Twitter for harassment or that he offered no concrete evidence or that he had lobbed false accusations in the past and recanted them. Trump read the article and began asking staff about Walsh.

Goldmacher added that then-chief of staff Reince Priebus and White House staff secretary Rob Porter have tried to implement a system to manage and document the paperwork Trump receives. How'd that work out?

Kelly is trying to do the same thing, three months later. Perhaps he will prove a more effective manager than Priebus, but Trump is still his impulsive self, and his aides are still vying for influence. Those immutable factors will make Kelly's mission very difficult.

Read more from the original source:
Trump's new chief of staff plans to restrict the president's media diet. Others have tried and failed. - Washington Post

One of the Google Home's best features is the ability to control playback of a Chromecast with voice commands. For example, you can ask "OK Google, play Gravity Falls on the living room TV" to start playing content without having another device nearby. Now the Fire TV can do that, but with Alexa devices.

Amazon's Fire TV and Fire TV stick already have an Alexa button on the remote, which you can use to control media playback and open apps. A software update is rolling out to all Fire TV models that allows you to use all the same commands, but from another Alexa device (like an Echo or Echo Dot). You can use phrases like pause, play, resume, fast forward, and next episode.

If your Fire TV finds that the update is available, it will install automatically when you reboot it (or after it is idle for 30 minutes). You can find more information at the source link below.

It looks like someone at Amazon jumped the gun a little and released the firmware changelog three weeks earlier before the feature was live. Now it's really official. Amazon says that the feature is rolling today in the US for all generations of Fire TV and Fire TV Stick, whereas smart TVs withFire TV Edition will have it within the week. There's also a promised support for viewing smart home camera feeds on the Fire TV and 2nd gen Fire TV Stick, but that's said to be "coming soon."

Read more from the original source:
[Update: It's really live now] Alexa devices can now control your Fire TV - Android Police

A big screen in Cardiffs main shopping street was reportedly hacked with images of swastikas and messages about Shariah appearing.

The giant billboard in Queen Street was allegedly hacked on Tuesday night by a group who claimed on social media that they had a little fun.

A poster on the thread Politically Incorrect, on internet site 4chan, wrote on Twitter: Some Anons from /pol/ were able to hack into a billboard in Cardiff, Wales.

As you can see, they had a little fun.

Images of a swastika and a message that read Warning. This is a Shariah controlled zone. No alcohol. No gambling. No porn were projected onto the board above the Superdrug store in the busy street in the heart of the capital just as thousands of children are off school during the summer holidays.

There were also images of memes and a poster which read Big Brother is watching you, according to the social media account.

A South Wales Police spokesman said they were investigating the incident after receiving a number of calls from concerned bypassers.

In a statement they said: On Tuesday evening South Wales Police received a number of calls relating to concerns regarding messages being displayed on the screens in Queen Street, Cardiff.

We alerted the city council and will investigate any crimes which may have been committed.

The billboard is operated by blowUP media, who have been contacted for comment.

A spokesman Cardiff council said: The council has contacted the company that own and operate the advertising screen. The screen was switched off at midnight on Tuesday night.

See more here:
A hacker gained control of this central Cardiff billboard and posted a swastika and messages mocking Islam - WalesOnline