SI
SI
discoversearch

   Technology StocksMedia Industries: Newspapers, TV, Radio, Movies, Online


Previous 10 Next 10 
From: Ron9/15/2017 10:59:53 AM
   of 2334
 

Twitter co-founder: Tech media has a 'junk information epidemic'
money.cnn.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Sam9/16/2017 8:47:20 AM
   of 2334
 
The End Is Here: Cable's Media Dominance
Must Read
Sep. 12, 2017 11:14 AM ET
Jay van Santen
Value, Growth, tech, medium-term horizon

Summary

Direct-to-consumer streaming, for the first time in 2017, offers a viable alternative to traditional MVPD (cable and satellite) dominance. This shift has been anticipated for a decade.

The flood of new and varied streaming services - in the past year – brings consumers, for the first time, a straightforward and cost-effective way to tailor media packages to.

Fat PayTV bundle subscriber attrition will only accelerate – dramatically - in the next several years, then moderate to an ongoing gradual decline.

The drop in revenue and basically absence of profit and margin from Skinny bundles and OTT services will impact legacy communication companies.

“My grandchildren will never have a cable bill; only a bandwidth bill”.

continues at seekingalpha.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Ron9/19/2017 11:20:20 AM
   of 2334
 
Yelp says Google is breaking its promise to regulators, claims serious illicit efforts to stifle competition
wsj.com

We really haven't had a tech company spanking by the feds since Microsoft...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Ron9/22/2017 11:09:01 AM
   of 2334
 
Facebook’s ethos, and Facebook’s Russia problem, in one sentence:
recode.net

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Ron who wrote (2291)9/22/2017 11:16:54 AM
From: freelyhovering
1 Recommendation   of 2334
 
Check out his comments.








Mark Zuckerberg
19 hours ago





I just went live a minute ago. Here’s what I said:

Today is my first day back in the office after taking parental leave. It was really special to be with Priscilla and August after she was born, and to get to spend some more time with Max.

While I was out on leave, I spent a lot of time with our teams on the question of Russian interference in the US elections. I made some decisions on the next steps we're taking, and I want to share those with you now.


First, let me say this. I care deeply about the democratic process and protecting its integrity. Facebook's mission is all about giving people a voice and bringing people closer together. Those are deeply democratic values and we're proud of them. I don't want anyone to use our tools to undermine democracy. That's not what we stand for.

The integrity of our elections is fundamental to democracy around the world. That's why we've built teams dedicated to working on election integrity and preventing governments from interfering in the elections of other nations. And as we've shared before, our teams have found and shut down thousands of fake accounts that could be attempting to influence elections in many countries, including recently in the French elections.

Now, I wish I could tell you we're going to be able to stop all interference, but that wouldn't be realistic. There will always be bad people in the world, and we can't prevent all governments from all interference. But we can make it harder. We can make it a lot harder. And that's what we're going to do.

So today I want to share the steps we're taking to protect election integrity and make sure that Facebook is a force for good in democracy. While the amount of problematic content we've found so far remains relatively small, any attempted interference is a serious issue. Here are 9 things we'll be working on over the next few months:

1. We are actively working with the US government on its ongoing investigations into Russian interference. We have been investigating this for many months, and for a while we had found no evidence of fake accounts linked to Russia running ads. When we recently uncovered this activity, we provided that information to the special counsel. We also briefed Congress -- and this morning I directed our team to provide the ads we've found to Congress as well. As a general rule, we are limited in what we can discuss publicly about law enforcement investigations, so we may not always be able to share our findings publicly. But we support Congress in deciding how to best use this information to inform the public, and we expect the government to publish its findings when their investigation is complete.

2. We will continue our investigation into what happened on Facebook in this election. We may find more, and if we do, we will continue to work with the government. We are looking into foreign actors, including additional Russian groups and other former Soviet states, as well as organizations like the campaigns, to further our understanding of how they used our tools. These investigations will take some time, but we will continue our thorough review.

3. Going forward -- and perhaps the most important step we're taking -- we're going to make political advertising more transparent. When someone buys political ads on TV or other media, they're required by law to disclose who paid for them. But you still don't know if you're seeing the same messages as everyone else. So we're going to bring Facebook to an even higher standard of transparency. Not only will you have to disclose which page paid for an ad, but we will also make it so you can visit an advertiser's page and see the ads they're currently running to any audience on Facebook. We will roll this out over the coming months, and we will work with others to create a new standard for transparency in online political ads.

4. We will strengthen our ad review process for political ads. To be clear, it has always been against our policies to use any of our tools in a way that breaks the law -- and we already have many controls in place to prevent this. But we can do more. Most ads are bought programmatically through our apps and website without the advertiser ever speaking to anyone at Facebook. That's what happened here. But even without our employees involved in the sales, we can do better.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you we're going to catch all bad content in our system. We don't check what people say before they say it, and frankly, I don't think our society should want us to. Freedom means you don't have to ask permission first, and that by default you can say what you want. If you break our community standards or the law, then you're going to face consequences afterwards. We won't catch everyone immediately, but we can make it harder to try to interfere.

5. We are increasing our investment in security and specifically election integrity. In the next year, we will more than double the team working on election integrity. In total, we'll add more than 250 people across all our teams focused on security and safety for our community.

6. We will expand our partnerships with election commissions around the world. We already work with electoral commissions in many countries to help people register to vote and learn about the issues. We'll keep doing that, and now we're also going to establish a channel to inform election commissions of the online risks we've identified in their specific elections.

7. We will increase sharing of threat information with other tech and security companies. We already share information on bad actors on the internet through programs like ThreatExchange, and now we're exploring ways we can share more information about anyone attempting to interfere with elections. It is important that tech companies collaborate on this because it's almost certain that any actor trying to misuse Facebook will also be trying to abuse other internet platforms too.

8. We are working proactively to strengthen the democratic process. Beyond pushing back against threats, we will also create more services to protect our community while engaging in political discourse. For example, we're looking at adapting our anti-bullying systems to protect against political harassment as well, and we're scaling our ballot information tools to help more people understand the issues.

9. We have been working to ensure the integrity of the German elections this weekend, from taking actions against thousands of fake accounts, to partnering with public authorities like the Federal Office for Information Security, to sharing security practices with the candidates and parties. We're also examining the activity of accounts we've removed and have not yet found a similar type of effort in Germany. This is incredibly important and we have been focused on this for a while.

At the same time, it's important not to lose sight of the more straightforward and larger ways Facebook plays a role in elections -- and these effects operate at much larger scales of 100x or 1000x bigger than what we're discussing here.

In 2016, people had billions of interactions and open discussions on Facebook that may never have happened offline. Candidates had direct channels to communicate with tens of millions of citizens. Campaigns spent tens of millions organizing and advertising online to get their messages out further. And we organized "get out the vote" efforts that helped as many as 2 million people register to vote who might not have voted otherwise. Many of these dynamics were new in this election, or at much larger scale than ever before in history, and at much larger scale than the interference we've found.

But we are in a new world. It is a new challenge for internet communities to deal with nation states attempting to subvert elections. But if that's what we must do, we are committed to rising to the occasion. Our sophistication in handling these threats is growing and improving quickly. We will continue working with the government to understand the full extent of Russian interference, and we will do our part not only to ensure the integrity of free and fair elections around the world, but also to give everyone a voice and to be a force for good in democracy everywhere.

Thanks for tuning in, and we'll keep you updated with more soon. You can read more on our Hard Questions blog here: l.facebook.com.










86K

5.5K

5.5K

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: freelyhovering who wrote (2292)9/22/2017 11:48:52 AM
From: FUBHO
   of 2334
 
Screech is such an evil clown. It is hard to imagine the intellect of someone who voted based on what they saw on Facebook.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Ron9/22/2017 6:22:51 PM
   of 2334
 
Why regulating Google and Facebook like utilities is a long shot axios.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: freelyhovering who wrote (2292)9/23/2017 2:00:44 PM
From: Ron
   of 2334
 
Interesting piece on young Mr Zuckerberg's company. I had no idea they had such a huge reach into Asia.
Message 31269391

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Ron9/26/2017 11:02:08 AM
   of 2334
 
The FCC's Plan for political ad disclosures
axios.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Sam9/28/2017 5:58:21 AM
1 Recommendation   of 2334
 
“Humiliating”: Inside the Latest Controversy to Roil The New York Times
A deeply inaccurate book review has set off much consternation, and soul-searching, at 620 Eighth Avenue.

by Joe Pompeo
September 21, 2017 11:29 am

Last weekend, The New York Times’s normally stately and uncontroversial Sunday Book Review became the unexpected platform for a surprising journalistic skirmish. In her assessment of Vanessa Grigoriadis’s new book, Blurred Lines, an examination of the ever-heated debate surrounding consensual sex on college campuses, writer Michelle Goldberg offered some praise before descending into a forceful critique of Grigoriadis for allegedly not having her facts straight. Goldberg’s accusations were unequivocal and, at times, savage. “When Grigoriadis moves away from individual dramas to broad cultural pronouncements, the book falters,” Goldberg wrote. “Occasionally she makes baffling errors that threaten to undermine her entire book.”

Grigoriadis’s response was fierce: she in turn chastened Goldberg for being the one with an insufficient grasp of the facts. “Not one charge she makes in her review is correct,” Grigoriadis wrote in a blistering, point-by-point rebuttal on her Facebook page. “Michelle performed some of her own (incompetent) journalism here.” Indeed, before the fracas went public, Goldberg’s piece had been appended with a monster correction.

continues at vanityfair.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2017 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.