ReportWire

Tag: iab-internet

  • More than 500 dead as 7.8-magnitude earthquake hits southern Turkey and Syria | CNN

    More than 500 dead as 7.8-magnitude earthquake hits southern Turkey and Syria | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Istanbul, Turkey
    CNN
     — 

    Rescuers are racing to find survivors trapped beneath rubble either side of the Turkey-Syrian border as the death toll from one of the strongest earthquakes to hit Turkey in 100 years rose beyond 500 people.

    Nearly 3,000 others were injured as the 7.8-magnitude quake shook residents from their beds around 4 a.m. Monday morning, sending tremors as far away as Lebanon and Israel.

    The earthquake’s epicenter was 23 kilometers (14.2 miles) east of Nurdagi, in Turkey’s Gaziantep province, at a depth of 24.1 kilometers (14.9 miles), the United States Geological Survey (USGS) said.

    Video from the scene in Turkey showed day breaking over rows of collapsed buildings, some with apartments exposed to the elements as people huddled in the freezing cold beside them, waiting for help.

    In Turkey, at least 284 people were killed and more than 2,300 injured, according to Vice President Fuat Oktay. In neighboring Syria, at least 237 people died and more than 630 were injured, Syrian state news agency SANA reported citing a Ministry of Health official. The deaths were reported in Aleppo, Latakia, Hama and Tartus.

    Dozens of people are trapped under rubble, according to the “White Helmets” group, officially known as Syria Civil Defense, a humanitarian organization formed to rescue people injured in conflict. Much of northwestern Syria, which borders Turkey, is controlled by anti-government forces amid a bloody civil war that began in 2011.

    Monday’s quake is believed to be the strongest to hit Turkey since 1939, when an earthquake of the same magnitude killed 30,000 people, according to the USGS. Earthquakes of this magnitude are rare, with fewer than five occurring each year on average, anywhere in the world. Seven quakes with magnitude 7.0 or greater have struck Turkey in the past 25 years – but Monday’s is the most powerful.

    Karl Lang, an assistant professor at Georgia Tech University’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, told CNN the area hit by the quake Monday is prone to seismic activity. “It’s a very large fault zone, but this is a larger earthquake than they’ve experienced any time in recent memory,” Lang said.

    Several buildings were destroyed following the powerful earthquake in southern Turkey on February 6, 2023.

    Journalist Eyad Kourdi, who lives in Gaziantep and was staying with his parents when the earthquake struck early Monday, said “it felt like it would never be over.”

    When the shaking stopped, Kourdi and his parents walked out of their home still wearing their pajamas, he said.

    With several inches of snow on the ground, they waited outside in the rain for about 30 minutes before he could go back inside to grab coats and boots.

    Strong aftershocks have been felt in southern and central Turkey. About 11 minutes after the main quake hit, the strongest aftershock of 6.7 magnitude hit about 32 kilometers (20 miles) northwest of the main quake’s epicenter. Another intense aftershock with a magnitude of 5.6 then occurred 19 minutes after the main quake.

    A destroyed apartment and damaged vehicle in Yurt neighborhood of Cukurova district after the earthquake in Adana, Turkey, on February 6, 2023.

    Kourdi said there were up to eight “very strong” aftershocks in under a minute after the 7.8 magnitude quake struck, causing belongings in his home to fall to the ground. Many of his neighbors had left their homes following the quake, he said.

    Photos showing the true scale of the disaster emerged as day broke in Turkey. Entire buildings have been flattened, with metal rods scattered across the streets. Cars have toppled over, while bulldozers work to clear the debris.

    A winter storm in the region is exacerbating the disaster, according to CNN meteorologists.

    “Hundreds of thousands of people are impacted by this. It is cold. It is rainy. Roads could be impacted, that means your food, your livelihood, the care for your children, the care for your family,” CNN meteorologist Karen Maginnis said.

    “Anything as far as crops or anything growing across this region will be impacted as well. The ramifications of this are broad and will impact this region for weeks, and months.”

    A destroyed building after a powerful earthquake jolts Turkey on February 6, 2023.

    Search and rescue teams have been dispatched to the south of the country, Turkey’s interior minister, Suleyman Soylu, said. AFAD, the disaster agency, said it had requested international help through the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC), the European Union’s humanitarian program.

    Nearly 1,000 search and rescue volunteers have been deployed from Turkey’s largest city, Istanbul, along with dogs, trucks and aid, according to its governor, Ali Yerlikaya.

    “Sorry for our loss. I wish our injured a speedy recovery,” Yerlikaya wrote on Twitter.

    The governor of Gaziantep, Davut Gul, said on Twitter that “the earthquake was felt strongly in our city,” and advised the public to wait outside their homes and stay calm.

    “Please let’s wait outside without panic. Let’s not use our cars. Let’s not crowd the main roads. Let’s not keep the phones busy,” he said.

    Gaziantep province has a number of small- and medium-sized cities, with a sizable refugee population, according to Brookings Institute fellow Asli Aydintasbas.

    “Some of these areas are rather poor. Some are more richer, urban areas … but other parts that we’re talking about that seem to have been devastated, are relatively lower income areas,” she said.

    Video from the city of Diyarbakir, to the northeast of Gaziantep, shows rescue workers frantically trying to pull survivors out of the rubble.

    Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the quake was felt in many parts of the country.

    “I convey my best wishes to all our citizens who were affected by the earthquake that occurred in Kahramanmaraş and was felt in many parts of our country. All our relevant units are on alert under the coordination of AFAD,” Erdogan wrote on Twitter.

    Search and rescue operations are underway as many are fear trapped in the rubble.

    Messages of condolences and support started pouring in Monday morning as world leaders woke to the news of the deadly earthquake.

    White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said the United States was “profoundly concerned” about the destruction in Syria and Turkey.

    “I have been in touch with Turkish officials to relay that we stand ready to provide any & all needed assistance. We will continue to closely monitor the situation in coordination with Turkiye,” Sullivan wrote on Twitter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • America’s top cyber diplomat says his Twitter account was hacked | CNN Politics

    America’s top cyber diplomat says his Twitter account was hacked | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    America’s top cybersecurity diplomat Nate Fick said his personal Twitter account was hacked, calling it part of the “perils of the job.”

    Fick tweeted the news from his personal account Saturday evening.

    It was not clear who was responsible for the hack or if they had made any unauthorized posts on Fick’s account. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday.

    There did not appear to any broader fallout from the hack. Fick uses the account sparingly and instead promotes his work through an official State Department account.

    President Joe Biden announced in June his intent to nominate Fick, a Marine Corps veteran and former chief executive of a cybersecurity firm, to lead the newly formed Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy.

    The new bureau is an effort to make digital rights issues an intrinsic part of US foreign policy at a time when Russia and China are increasingly trying to put their own authoritarian stamp on the internet.

    Fick was sworn into office in September as the country’s first “ambassador-at-large” for cyberspace and digital policy. His charge includes helping build US allies’ ability to respond to cyberattacks and promoting secure 5G communications technology.

    Fick is scheduled to travel to Seoul this week to discuss cybersecurity cooperation with the South Korean government, according to the State Department. Washington and Seoul share a common cyberspace foe in North Korea, which has robust hacking capabilities despite its reputation as a digital backwater.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • I’m a parent with an active social media brand: Here’s what you need to check on your child’s social media right now | CNN

    I’m a parent with an active social media brand: Here’s what you need to check on your child’s social media right now | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: Sign up for CNN’s Stress, But Less newsletter. Our six-part mindfulness guide will inform and inspire you to reduce stress while learning how to harness it.



    CNN
     — 

    If you follow me on Twitter or Instagram, you’ll know I wear a lot of hats: romance author, parent of funny tweenagers, part-time teacher, amateur homesteader, grumbling celiac and the wife of a seriously outdoorsy guy.

    Because I’m an author with a major publisher in today’s competitive market, I’ve been tasked with stepping up my social media brand: participation, creation and all. The more transparent and likable I am online, the better my books sell. Therefore, to social media I go.

    It’s rare to find someone with no social media presence these days, but there’s a marked difference between posting a few pictures for family and friends and actively creating social media content as part of your daily life.

    With a whopping 95% of teens polled having access to smartphones (and 98% of teens over 15), according to an August Pew Research Center survey on teens, social media and technology, it doesn’t look like social media platforms are going away anytime soon.

    Not only are they key social tools, but they also allow teens to feel more a part of things in their communities. Many teens like being online, according to a November Pew Research Center survey on teen life on social media. Eighty percent of the teens surveyed felt more connected to what is happening in their friends’ lives, while 71% felt social media allows them to showcase their creativity.

    So, while posting online is work for me, it’s a way of life for the tweens and teens I see creating and publishing content online. As a parent of two middle schoolers, I know how important social media is to them, and I also know what’s out there. I see the good, the bad and the viral, and I’ve have put together some guidelines, based on what I’ve seen, for my fellow parents to watch for.

    Here are eight questions to ask yourself as you check out your children’s social media accounts.

    If you don’t, it’s time to start. It’s like when I had to look up the term “situationship,” I saw that ignorance is not bliss in this case. Or really any case when it comes to your children. Both of my children have smartphones, but even if your children don’t have smartphones, if they have any sort of device — phone, tablet, school laptop — it’s likely they have some sort of social media account out there. Every app our children wish to add to their smart devices comes through my husband’s and my phone notifications for approval. Before I approve any apps, I’ll read the reviews, run an internet search and text my mom friends for their experience.

    Most tweens and teens use social media for socializing with local friends.

    If I’m still uncertain about an app, I’ll hold off on approving it until I can sit down with my children and ask them why they want it. Sometimes just waiting and forcing a short discussion is enough to convince them they no longer want it. In our household, I avoid any apps that run social surveys, allow anonymous feedback or require the individual to use location services.

    If you don’t have your family phone plan all hooked together with parental controls, I’d advise setting that up ASAP. Because different devices and apps have different ways to monitor and set up parental controls, it’s impossible to link all the options here. However, a quick search will give you exactly the coverage you are comfortable with, including apps that track your child’s text messages and changing the settings on your child’s phone to lock down at a certain time every night.

    The top social media platforms teens use today are YouTube (95% of teens polled), TikTok (67%), Instagram (62%) and Snapchat (59%), according to the Pew Research Center survey on teens and social media tech. Other social media platforms teens use less frequently are Twitter, Reddit, WhatsApp and Facebook. Most notably, Facebook is seeing a significant downturn in teen users. This list isn’t exhaustive, however. I would check out your children’s devices for group chat apps (such as Slack or Discord) and also scroll through their sport or activity apps where group chat capabilities exist.

    I’ve seen preteens and teens using their real names, birthdate, home address, pets’ names, locker numbers or their school baseball team. Any of that information could be used to identify your child and location in real life or using a quick Google search. All of that is an absolute “no” in our house.

    I also tell my kids not to answer the fun surveys and quizzes that invite children to share their unique information and repost it for others to see. These can be useful tools for predators and people trying to steal your children’s identity.

    What I do: I made the choice a long ago to withhold the names of my children and partner. It’s not an exact science, and I know some clever digging could find them. For my husband, it’s for the sake of his privacy and also the protection of his professionalism. Just because he’s married to a romance author doesn’t mean he should have to answer for my online antics, whatever they may be. For my children, I want to avoid anything embarrassing that could be traced back to them during their college application season.

    Even if your children keep their social media profiles private (more on that later), their biographical information, screen name and avatar or profile picture are public information.

    Do an internet search of your child’s name to see what’s out there and scroll through images to make sure there isn’t anything you wouldn’t want to be made public. In our household, I’ve asked my children to use generic items or illustrated avatars in their social media bios.

    What I do: Parents who do have active social media accounts may want to do a search of their own names. When my first book was published in 2019, I did a search of my name and images and found many photos of my children that came directly from my social media pages. I hadn’t posted pictures of them, but I did use a family photo as my profile photo and those are public record. Once I deleted them, the photos disappeared.

    Another “no” in our household is posting videos or photos of our home or bedrooms. Something that feels innocent and innocuous to your middle schooler may not feel that way to an adult seeking out inappropriate content.

    I learned this from one of my children’s Pinterest accounts. My kid loves to create themed videos using her own photos and stock pictures, and she’s gained over 500 followers in a short period of time. She has completely followed our rules and I know, because I check and follow her myself — but it hasn’t stopped the influx of adult men following her content.

    What we do: Over the holidays, I sat with her and went through each follower one by one and blocked anyone we decided was there for the wrong reasons. In the end, we blocked close to 30 adult men on her account. (I also know that some predators cleverly disguise themselves as children or teens, and we may not catch them all, but this is still a worthy exercise.)

    We also talk to our children about how to protect themselves. They wouldn’t want those strangers standing in their bedroom; therefore, they don’t want to post videos of their bedroom or bathroom or classroom for strangers to view.

    This is a tricky one for lots of reasons. For content creators to build their following, they need to remain public on social media. If your child is an entrepreneur or artist hoping to grab attention, locking down their account will prevent that from happening.

    That said, a way around this is to have two accounts. First, a private one, locked down and only used for family and close friends, and second, a public one that lacks identifiers but showcases whatever branding the child is hoping to grow. I’ve come across some well-managed public accounts for children who have giant followings and noticed they are usually run by parents, who state that right in the profile. I like this. If your children want public profiles because they are hoping to catch the attention of a talent scout, having the accounts monitored by a responsible adult who has their best interest in mind is a healthy compromise.

    This is the exception, however. Most tweens and teens today use their social media for socializing with local friends. The benefit of keeping their account as private (or as private as can be) is threefold. It allows them to screen who follows their content, thus preventing our Pinterest fiasco. It prevents strangers from accessing their content and making it viral without their permission. And it protects them from unsolicited contact with strangers.

    Not all social media platforms have the option to make your account “private.” For example, YouTube has parental controls that can be adjusted at any time. TikTok and Instagram can be made private (which means users must approve followers) by making the change in the account settings. Once the account is private, a little padlock will show next to the username.

    Snapchat allows users to approve followers on a case-by-case basis as well as turn off features that disclose a user’s location. Notably, Snapchat also informs users when another user takes a screenshot of their story, which is a feature other social media platforms don’t have yet.

    Most group chat apps don’t have the ability to go private so much as they ask users to approve of follower requests. Take time to discuss with your children who they allow to follow them and what personal information they allow those followers to know. It’s also a great time to teach them the art of “blocking” those individuals who are unsafe or unkind.

    My suggestion is to log in, scroll around and even ask your children to teach you about the platforms they use. Then, when they roll their eyes at you, go ahead and tell them about your first Hotmail email address and the way you picked the perfect emo playlist on your Myspace page … and when they’re bent over laughing, sneak a peek at their follower list. Trust me, it’ll be worth it.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How stars like Dolly Parton and Tom Hanks became American sweethearts | CNN

    How stars like Dolly Parton and Tom Hanks became American sweethearts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In our increasingly divided world, there are few things on which we can agree – not politics, not religion, certainly not social issues.

    But there is Dolly Parton.

    The blonde icon with a bouffant is one of the few celebrities most Americans love unconditionally. She’s made believers of conservatives and progressives, country fans and indie contrarians, boomers who grew up with her and “Zoomers” who’ve posed with murals of her face. She is a feminist heroine, an ally to the LGBTQ community and a Southern girl from the Smokies whose story of success is a near-perfect example of the American dream come true. She helped fund Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine. Decades into her career, Dolly Parton is Teflon.

    Parton is perhaps the most prominent example of an exceedingly rare category of celebrity – the American sweetheart. Over many years, sweetheart celebrities have cultivated reputations rooted in kindness, authenticity and hard-earned success that have elevated them above your average A-lister. They’re the kind of celebrities who host an inauguration celebration to appease a hurting country. They inspire sympathy when they’re photographed alone on a park bench eating a sandwich. And when they die, they prompt nationwide mourning, as though Americans just lost their own grandmother.

    These “sweethearts” become symbols in American pop culture. We turn to them for inspiration, moral guidance, reliable entertainment and even solace, said Claire Sisco King, an associate professor of communication studies at Vanderbilt University who studies celebrity culture.

    “It’s really difficult stuff that people experience every day – political divisiveness, concern about the future of the planet and the potential extinction of human life,” Sisco King told CNN. “So the idea that someone who’s famous could be really nice gives people a sense of hope.”

    Some of our biggest American sweethearts have been cultural fixtures for decades. Scholars of celebrity culture spoke to CNN about how certain celebrities rise above the rest of the Hollywood set to become the public’s sweethearts and the meaningful relationships fans can form with these untouchable icons.

    It might seem glib to focus so much on celebrities when their wealth and status largely shields them from everyday challenges, but celebrity culture serves a more important function than we realize, Sisco Kind said.

    Celebrities do “emotional labor” for their fans and haters alike, she said. They allow us to feel things through them – we might feel love and adoration for someone like Dolly Parton or the late Betty White, because they can represent kindness and humility, but deride more divisive figures like Kim Kardashian or Taylor Swift, who to some may represent narrow beauty norms or disingenuity.

    We also want to identify with celebrities, she said. The tabloid US Weekly regularly features the section, “Stars – they’re just like us!” – a collection of paparazzi shots of A-listers pumping gas, shopping for groceries or dropping their kids off at school. Those kinds of images can reinforce the idea that celebrities are relatable, Sisco King said.

    It makes sense that we’d want to identify with famous people whose reputations for niceness are equally well-known, said Jenna Drenten, an associate professor of marketing at Loyola University Chicago who studies how celebrities leverage social media.

    “Often fans use a simple rule of thumb: does this person seem like someone I’d want to be friends with?” Drenten told CNN.

    It certainly helps a celebrity build a “sweetheart” reputation when they became famous for playing sweethearts, like Tom Hanks: In between playing an irascible toy cowboy, he’s portrayed a widower whose kindness attracts Meg Ryan, a Southern man who stumbles into historical events and compares life to sweets, a little boy who grew up too fast and Mr. Rogers. Because many of his best-known roles are of good-natured guys, we associate him off-screen with that same persona, Sisco King noted.

    “We expect actors to show us authenticity and an earnest emotional experience,” she said. “Because of that emphasis on authenticity, we tend to conflate actors and the characters they play.”

    Hanks is not Forrest Gump or Mr. Rogers, but he’s clearly aware of his reputation, and he lives up to it on red carpets or in interviews, Sisco King noted. He performs the “nice guy” persona because fans expect it from him.

    Oprah became one of the most beloved TV personalities of all time after enduring a difficult childhood.

    These sweethearts also, often indirectly, support the fantastical “American dream” – that any of us can become hugely successful through hard work, Sisco King said. Oprah endured several traumas in her youth, and racism and sexism in the TV industry, and she still earned her own daytime talk show and burnished her reputation as a genuine TV personality. Even after she became a billionaire, her many fans continue to uplift her as a rare gem.

    Dolly Parton famously grew up in poverty in rural Tennessee. Keanu Reeves has experienced a number of personal tragedies that have endeared him to fans. All the strife in their lives only contributes to their legend.

    “(Celebrities’) stories, coming from humble beginnings to achieving greatness, become a way of affirming people’s faith in or hope that they can achieve similarly,” Sisco King said.

    Put simply, per Drenten: “Americans love an underdog story.” And when those underdogs blossom into titans of their industry and seemingly hold onto their humanity, we often can’t help but root for them.

    Our relationships to celebrities have become much more intimate in the last few years, particularly since the onset of the pandemic, Sisco King said. Our faves weren’t working or doing press junkets, so they stayed in the public eye with intimate online snapshots from quarantine or cheeky cooking segments on Instagram Live. This was when it almost felt like celebrities really were like us. (That didn’t last long once they started vacationing or escaping the virus in spacious, comfortable homes.)

    Not to mention, Tom Hanks getting Covid-19 in March 2020 concretized the seriousness of the pandemic for many people – his was one of the first verified cases of the virus among major celebrities. It was shocking, at the time, that such an illness could penetrate a celebrity’s bubble. He shared the news directly with fans on Instagram.

    That the pandemic happened in an “era of ubiquitous digital networks” was a “perfect convergence,” Sisco King said: We had easy access to famous people with whom we could develop parasocial relationships, or those one-sided relationships we have with celebrities we’ll likely never know. When most-to-all interaction occurred virtually, it only deepened the strong feelings we have for certain celebs.

    “We can get kind of obsessed with particular celebrities because they are easier to get access to,” Sisco King said. “That kind of intensifies that kind of parasocial relationship.”

    There remains an expectation that celebrities should continue to provide access to fans. Some sweethearts are up to the task – Parton’s team regularly posts on her behalf, sharing a mix of sponsored content, irresistible throwback photos and even memes. Hanks might even post personally if his “Hanx!” signatures are to be believed. Oprah shares candid videos about what she’s cooking, where she’s hiking and the shenanigans she’s dragging Gayle King into.

    Keanu Reeves' quiet acts of charity are among the reasons he has endeared himself to fans.

    On Twitter, TikTok and other platforms, even brief anecdotes about celebrities can travel far and fast, which can help further boost the reputations of some sweethearts. Tales of stars doing basic acts of good, from Hanks delivering a platter of martinis to his table at the Golden Globes to Paul Rudd reaching out to a bullied fan, frequently go viral. It’s even more impactful when a sweetheart celebrity doesn’t divulge their good deed themselves – when Keanu Reeves’ $31.5 million donation to cancer research was revealed by the press, it only deepened the belief that Reeves is a humble, genuinely good person.

    Even among American sweethearts, Parton is a “special case,” Sisco King said.

    “Part of what has made her so beloved is that she’s adored by people of so many different walks of life,” Sisco King said. “She can mean so many different things to so many different people.”

    Parton has been upheld as a feminist icon who has overcome sexism and objectification to rise to the top of her industry, which can endear her to people marginalized by race, gender or sexuality. She’s a talented lyricist whose songs still move listeners decades later. She is who we want her to be, Sisco King said.

    The ever-savvy Parton has capitalized on this prolonged, social media-aided wave of stardom. In the last five years alone, she’s slapped her name onto a Netflix series inspired by her lyrics, an NBC Christmas special, Duncan Hines cake mix, a Williams-Sonoma collection, a T-Mobile Super Bowl commercial and a live New Year’s Eve show (the last two in collaboration her goddaughter Miley Cyrus). Then there are the third parties who sell prayer candles emblazoned with her face, cross stitch patterns with her lyrics, wrapping paper with her image or car air fresheners shaped like her wigged head. The brand Lingua Franca sells nearly $400 cashmere sweaters embroidered with “What would Dolly do?” and “In Dolly we trust.”

    Resisting Dolly Parton's charms is a near-impossible task.

    And yet, for the most part, fans haven’t grown cynical of Parton and her marketing prowess. When a celebrity we love does something we don’t love – Tom Hanks cursing at paparazzi and fans swarming his wife, maybe, or Parton lending her likeness to products we dislike – we can “suspend disbelief” in a way to “compartmentalize those concerns when you’re really deeply invested in a celebrity,” Sisco Kind said.

    Parton has also accumulated “goodwill capital,” said Gayle Stever, a professor of psychology for Empire State College, State University of New York who studies fandom. “Her generosity and philanthropy are well-known, and people appreciate that.” Even if she makes a move we wouldn’t, we’re able to disregard it, because we think we know her well enough.

    Celebrity sweethearts like Parton and Hanks can feel just as important to us as our real-life loved ones, Sisco King noted. We feel connected to the ones we think we know well, even if the love isn’t reciprocated.

    When the biggest celebrities of the day include a billionaire tech exec with slippery Twitter fingers and a formerly lauded rapper who uses racist and antisemitic language, it can be something of a comfort when an affable figure like Paul Rudd or Keanu Reeves appears onscreen.

    Engaging with beloved celebrities can also bring about more good than video tributes and merch with a famous person’s face. Stever said that often, adult fans of sweetheart celebs are motivated to join them in the causes their idols care about. It matters when Parton draws attention to children’s literacy or Oprah highlights antiracist efforts, or when Betty White publicized animal advocacy, because they may prompt their fans to get involved.

    “Those kinds of role models encourage people to be philanthropic and to care about others,” Stever said. “I think this serves a huge cultural purpose … all of these people have accumulated a huge amount of positive social capital that inspires their fans to support the good works that these admired celebrities support. We need that.”

    On a personal level, engaging with beloved celebrity sweethearts “allows us to process our own feelings,” Sisco King said. By viewing their work or supporting them, we can feel those emotions that we might otherwise bury.

    “It’s the same reason we seek out films and television shows that produce emotional experiences – ‘I want to have a good cry,’” she said. “I think celebrity culture functions kind of similarly.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Twitter users are upset about the platform’s latest change | CNN Business

    Why Twitter users are upset about the platform’s latest change | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    The season of Twitter shakeups isn’t over yet.

    The social media platform has announced it will eliminate free API access for third-party developers. While the concept of an “API restriction” may not sound dramatic, this latest change has users once again worried about Twitter’s future. In simple terms, this means the site’s innumerable automated accounts will grind to a halt, unless the person in charge of them decides to pay for access.

    It also means researchers who leverage Twitter’s API to collect public data from the site will lose a key resource – again, unless they pay.

    Many of Twitter’s users are not happy about the change, as they say it will fundamentally alter the platform’s culture.

    API stands for “application programming interface,” and it’s a framework that allows programs to communicate and connect with each other. In the case of a platform like Twitter, or Facebook or YouTube, this means developers outside the company can create programs that connect with the main product. Twitter’s description of its API says developers can use the feature to “moderate conversations for health and safety,” “enable creation and personal expression,” “measure and analyze what’s happening” and more.

    Automated accounts are a common example of how this work appears on the platform. If you’ve ever seen an account that automatically tweets out reminders to hydrate, or random photos of possums, you’ve seen one way an API can be used. Some people have used Twitter’s API to provide accessibility options to content, like alt text or image descriptions. Others, like thread readers or reminders, can help people save and revisit information on the site.

    Since Twitter’s announcement, many of these accounts have made forlorn announcements that they will cease working once the policy goes into effect on February 9. The Twitter Dev account noted that more details on what users could expect would come next week, while CEO Elon Musk remarked in a separate tweet that “Just ~100/month for API access with ID verification will clean” up what he said was abuse of the API.

    While accounts that tweet “Lord of the Rings” quotes or make site navigation easier aren’t necessarily the backbone of the platform, users argue they contribute to the social experience that’s become a part of every day life.

    APIs also allow people to create searches for publicly available data stored in a digital record, which is extremely useful for research, marketing and other purposes. Some users are concerned about what the API access changes will mean for their work.

    It’s not unusual for a platform as big as Twitter to have an API that’s accessible to the public, as it provides more ways for people to use the platform – a relationship that can be beneficial for the company. Tech experts surmise that Twitter’s decision to have people pay for API access is one in a long string of moneymaking attempts since the company came under Musk’s direction.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Snap stock plunges 15% as revenue growth stalls | CNN Business

    Snap stock plunges 15% as revenue growth stalls | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Snapchat’s parent company reported stalled revenue growth and a large net loss for the final three months of 2022, as it confronts tighter advertiser budgets amid broader economic uncertainty.

    Snap’s quarterly revenue was just shy of $1.3 billion, essentially flat from the year prior. For the full year, Snap’s revenue grew 12%, a slower rate that the company attributed to “rapid deceleration in digital advertising growth.”

    The situation appears to be even worse in the current quarter. Snap said it has already seen a roughly 7% revenue decline so far in the first quarter compared to the year prior. It estimates revenue for the first three months of the year will be down between 2% and 10% compared to the previous year. (Those figures were included in an investor letter, despite Snap saying it would not provide specific guidance for the quarter.)

    Meanwhile, Snap posted a net loss of more than $288 million in the quarter, compared to the $22.5 million in net income it earned in the same period a year ago.

    Snap

    (SNAP)
    shares fell as much as 15% in after-hours trading following the report.

    The report marked the fourth straight quarter of net losses for Snap, which has suffered from increased competition in the social media market, disruptions to its ad business from Apple’s app privacy changes and weaker advertiser demand amid fears of a looming recession. High interest rates and inflation have also impacted many large tech firms.

    Snap’s earnings could be a concerning bellwether for the other tech giants that rely on the health of the digital ad market, including Facebook-parent Meta and Google-parent Alphabet, both of which are set to report results this week.

    Shares of Meta and Alphabet dipped slightly in after-hours trading Tuesday following Snap’s results.

    Snap in August became one of the first big tech firms to announce major layoffs when it said it would cut 20% of its staff. A slew of other tech companies have followed suit in recent months, including Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, Mircrosoft and others, resulting in tens of thousands of job losses in the industry.

    In addition to challenges in the digital advertising market, Snap pointed to a change to its ad platform that it expects “will drive improvement for our partners and our business over time, but that may be disruptive… in the near term.”

    Perhaps the lone bright spot for Snap in the results is its audience. The company reported having 375 million daily active users in the quarter, an increase of 17%. Snap’s subscription service Snapchat+, which launched last year in an attempt to grow new revenue sources, reached more than 2 million paying subscribers in the fourth quarter, it said.

    The company also said it expects to realize the $500 million in cost reductions it had promised as a result of its restructuring by the end of the first quarter.

    Still, Scott Kessler, an analyst for investment firm Third Bridge, said in an investor note following the report that, “one of the big questions about Snap is whether it remains a growth story or can soon continue as a growth story,” given its gloomy outlook for the start of this year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Surgeon General says 13 is ‘too early’ to join social media | CNN

    Surgeon General says 13 is ‘too early’ to join social media | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy says he believes 13 is too young for children to be on social media platforms, because although sites allow children of that age to join, kids are still “developing their identity.”

    Meta, Twitter, and a host of other social media giants currently allow 13-year-olds to join their platforms.

    “I, personally, based on the data I’ve seen, believe that 13 is too early … It’s a time where it’s really important for us to be thoughtful about what’s going into how they think about their own self-worth and their relationships and the skewed and often distorted environment of social media often does a disservice to many of those children,” Murthy said on “CNN Newsroom.”

    The number of teenagers on social media has sparked alarm among medical professionals, who point to a growing body of research about the harm such platforms can cause adolescents.

    Murthy acknowledged the difficulties of keeping children off these platforms given their popularity, but suggested parents can find success by presenting a united front.

    “If parents can band together and say you know, as a group, we’re not going to allow our kids to use social media until 16 or 17 or 18 or whatever age they choose, that’s a much more effective strategy in making sure your kids don’t get exposed to harm early,” he told CNN.

    Adobe Stock

    New research suggests habitually checking social media can alter the brain chemistry of adolescents.

    According to a study published this month in JAMA Pediatrics, students who checked social media more regularly displayed greater neural sensitivity in certain parts of their brains, making their brains more sensitive to social consequences over time.

    Psychiatrists like Dr. Adriana Stacey have pointed to this phenomenon for years. Stacey, who works primarily with teenagers and college students, previously told CNN using social media releases a “dopamine dump” in the brain.

    “When we do things that are addictive like use cocaine or use smartphones, our brains release a lot of dopamine at once. It tells our brains to keep using that,” she said. “For teenagers in particular, this part of their brain is actually hyperactive compared to adults. They can’t get motivated to do anything else.”

    Recent studies demonstrate other ways excessive screen time can impact brain development. In young children, for example, excessive screen time was significantly associated with poorer emerging literacy skills and ability to use expressive language.

    Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, who recently published an op-ed in the Bulwark about loneliness and mental health, echoed the surgeon general’s concerns about social media. “We have lost something as a society, as so much of our life has turned into screen-to-screen communication, it just doesn’t give you the same sense of value and the same sense of satisfaction as talking to somebody or seeing someone,” Murphy told CNN in an interview alongside Murthy.

    For both Murphy and Murthy, the issue of social media addiction is personal. Both men are fathers – Murphy to teenagers and Murthy to young children. “It’s not coincidental that Dr. Murthy and I are probably talking more about this issue of loneliness more than others in public life,” Murphy told CNN. “I look at this through the prism of my 14-year-old and my 11-year-old.”

    As a country, Murphy explained, the U.S. is not powerless in the face of Big Tech. Lawmakers could make different decisions about limiting young kids from social media and incentivizing companies to make algorithms less addictive.

    The surgeon general similarly addressed addictive algorithms, explaining pitting adolescents against Big Tech is “just not a fair fight.” He told CNN, “You have some of the best designers and product developers in the world who have designed these products to make sure people are maximizing the amount of time they spend on these platforms. And if we tell a child, use the force of your willpower to control how much time you’re spending, you’re pitting a child against the world’s greatest product designers.”

    Despite the hurdles facing parents and kids, Murphy struck a note of optimism about the future of social media.

    “None of this is out of our control. When we had dangerous vehicles on the road, we passed laws to make those vehicles less dangerous,” he told CNN. “We should make decisions to make [social media] a healthier experience that would make kids feel better about themselves and less alone.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta and Twitter decided to restore Trump’s account. Will other platforms follow suit? | CNN Business

    Meta and Twitter decided to restore Trump’s account. Will other platforms follow suit? | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Former president Donald Trump could soon make a return to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, and reach the massive audiences on each, now that the companies behind those platforms have restored access to his accounts.

    But that could just be the start. The decisions by Twitter and now Facebook-parent Meta to bring back Trump could push — or at least provide cover for — a number of other platforms to make similar moves. 

    Facebook and Twitter restricted Trump’s accounts in the aftermath of the January 6 attack. The bans were seen as necessary by tech executives, and indeed many on Capitol Hill, believing Trump could use their platforms to incite further violence.

    Many other platforms followed suit by banning or restricting Trump, including YouTube, Snapchat and game streaming platform Twitch. Shopify, an e-commerce company, removed two stores associated with Trump, and digital payments provider Stripe said it would stop processing payments for Trump’s campaign. In some cases, platforms restricted channels or content that was associated with the then-president, if not directly affiliated — Reddit and Discord, for example, banned pro-Trump groups on their platforms.

    The net effect was that Trump, or at least his accounts, essentially vanished or went silent across the mainstream internet. Trump’s digital exile pushed him to launch his own social media platform, Truth Social. His media company even teased plans to create rivals to other online services, including Stripe. (Trump has not said whether he will resume posting from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram; he is believed to have some form of an exclusivity deal with Truth Social’s parent company to post there.)

    For now, some of these other companies appear to be sticking with their policies. On Wednesday, Snapchat parent Snap indicated that it is not planning to revisit its decision to ban Trump’s account two years ago.

    “In January 2021, Donald Trump’s Snapchat account was terminated for violating our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines,” a Snap spokesperson said in a statement to CNN. “According to our Community Guidelines, if your account is terminated for violating our Terms of Service or the Guidelines, you are not allowed to use Snapchat again.”

    But for other platforms, Meta’s ruling this week could add to the pressure many had already been facing to reconsider their bans after Trump announced he’d seek a third bid for the White House in 2024 and new Twitter owner Elon Musk gave him back his account.

    “Usually these companies do fly in a flock and whoever makes the first movements, other companies do tend to try to, in succession, follow behind because the initial company takes the biggest media hit and then the rest of them don’t suffer the reputational hit of being the first technology company to make a decision,” Joan Donovan, research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, told CNN earlier this month.

    A YouTube spokesperson told CNN Wednesday that the company currently had “nothing to share” on whether the company is or plans to consider reversing its suspension. Shopify, Stripe, Discord and Reddit did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the possibility of following Meta and Twitter’s leads and reversing their bans.

    When Musk announced the decision to reinstate Trump’s Twitter account in November, shortly after completing his acquisition of the company, it came with little explanation beyond Musk’s previously stated desire for freer speech on the platform. Musk conducted an informal poll of his followers and more voted in favor of restoring the account than not.

    Meta’s decision, by contrast, could provide a new set of precedents for platforms on how to handle Trump and other world leaders who violate their rules.

    In announcing its decision on Wednesday, Meta laid out “new guardrails” for how it will handle possible rules violations by Trump if he opts to return to Meta’s platforms. In short: yes, Trump can get suspended again, but a permanent ban no longer appears to be on the table.

    “In the event that Mr. Trump posts further violating content, the content will be removed and he will be suspended for between one month and two years, depending on the severity of the violation,” Clegg said. He added that the new, harsher penalties for repeat violations will also apply to other public figures whose accounts are reinstated following suspensions related to civil unrest.

    For content that doesn’t violate its rules but “contributes to the sort of risk that materialized on January 6th, such as content that delegitimizes an upcoming election or is related to QAnon,” Meta may limit distribution of the posts, Clegg said. The company could, for example, remove the reshare button or keep the posts visible on Trump’s page but not in users’ feeds, even for those who follow him, he said. For repeated instances, the company may restrict access to its advertising tools.

    If Trump again posts content that violates Meta’s rules but the company determines “there is a public interest in knowing that Mr. Trump made the statement that outweighs any potential harm,” Meta may similarly restrict the posts’ distribution but leave them visible on Trump’s page.

    The new policy may still require Meta’s leadership to make significant, subjective decisions about what content is potentially harmful public safety at large, but the rules could act as a model for how other platforms could bring back the former president without appearing reckless.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Google’s long period of online dominance could end | CNN Business

    How Google’s long period of online dominance could end | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    For the better part of 15 years, Google has seemed like an unstoppable force, powered by the strength of its online search engine and digital advertising business. But both now look increasingly vulnerable.

    This week, the Justice Department accused Google of running an illegal monopoly in its online advertising business and called for parts of it to be broken up. The case comes a couple of years after the Trump administration filed a similar suit going after the tech giant’s dominance in search.

    Google said the Justice Department is “doubling down on a flawed argument” and that the latest suit “attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector.” If successful, however, both blockbuster cases could upend a business model that’s made Google the most powerful advertising company on the internet. It would be the most consequential antitrust victory against a tech giant since the US government took on Microsoft more than 20 years ago.

    But even though the lawsuits drive at the heart of Google’s revenue machine, they could take years to play out. In the meantime, two other thorny issues are poised to determine Google’s future on a potentially shorter timeframe: The rise of generative artificial intelligence and what appears to be an accelerating decline in Google’s online ad marketshare.

    Just days before the DOJ suit, Google announced plans to cut 12,000 employees amid a dramatic slowdown in its revenue growth, and as it works to refocus its efforts partly around AI.

    Google has long been synonymous with online searches; it was one of the first modern tech companies whose name would become a verb. But a new threat emerged late last year when OpenAI, an artificial intelligence research company, publicly released a viral new AI chatbot tool called ChatGPT.

    Users of ChatGPT have showcased the bot’s ability to create poetry, draft legal documents, write code and explain complex ideas, with little more than a simple prompt. Trained on a vast amount of online data, ChatGPT can generate lengthy responses to open-ended questions, though it’s prone to some errors, or answer simple questions – “Who was the 25th president of the United States?” – which one might have previously had to scroll through search results on Google to find.

    ChatGPT is trained on vast amounts of data and uses this to generate responses to user prompts. While ChatGPT’s underlying technology has existed for some time, the fact that anyone can create an account and experiment with the tool has led to loads of hype for generative AI and made the technology’s potential instantly understandable to millions in a way that was only abstract before. It has also reportedly prompted Google’s management to declare a “code red” situation for its search business.

    “Google may be only a year or two away from total disruption. AI will eliminate the Search Engine Result Page, which is where they make most of their money,” Paul Buchheit, one of the creators of Gmail, tweeted last year. “Even if they catch up on AI, they can’t fully deploy it without destroying the most valuable part of their business!”

    If more users begin to rely on AI for their information needs, the argument goes, it could undercut Google’s search advertising, which is part of a $149 billion business segment at the company. Media coverage of ChatGPT has doubled down on this notion, with some outlets pitting ChatGPT against Google in head-to-head tests.

    There are some reasons to doubt this nightmare scenario might play out for Google.

    For one thing, Google operates at a vastly different scale. In November, Google’s website received more than 86 billion visits, compared to less than 300 million for ChatGPT, according to the traffic analysis website SimilarWeb. (ChatGPT was released publicly in late November.) For another, even in a world where Google provides specific, AI-generated responses to user queries, it could still analyze the queries to provide search advertising, just as it does today.

    Google has its own investments in highly sophisticated artificial intelligence. One of its AI-driven chat programs, LaMDA, even became a flashpoint last year after an engineer at the company claimed it had achieved sentience. (Google has disputed the claim and fired the engineer for breaches of company policy.)

    Google CEO Sundar Pichai has reportedly told employees that even though Google has similar capabilities to ChatGPT, the company has yet to commit to giving out AI-generated search responses because of the risk of providing inaccurate information, which could be detrimental to Google in the long run.

    Google’s stance highlights both its incredible influence, as the most trusted search engine on earth, and one of the core problems of generative AI: Due to the technology’s black-box design, it’s virtually impossible to find out how the technology arrived at a specific result. For many people, and for many years to come, being able to evaluate different sources of information for themselves may trump the convenience of receiving a single answer.

    All this has taken place against the backdrop of what seems to be an extended, multi-year decline in Google’s online advertising marketshare. Google’s position in digital advertising peaked in 2017 with 34.7% of the US market, according to third-party industry estimates, and is on pace to account for 28.8% this year.

    Google isn’t the only advertising giant to experience this trend. One-off factors like the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, as well as fears of a looming recession, have broadly affected the online advertising industry. Others, like Facebook-parent Meta, have been particularly susceptible to systemic changes such as Apple’s app privacy updates restricting the amount of information marketers can access about iOS users.

    But the decline also comes as Google faces new competition in the market. Rivals including Amazon, TikTok and even Apple have been attracting an increasing share of the digital advertising pie.

    Whatever the cause, Google’s advertising business, which is still massive, seems to face growing headwinds. And those headwinds could be exacerbated if some of the predictions about generative AI come to pass, or if the Justice Department’s lawsuits ultimately weaken Google’s grip on digital advertising.

    As part of the case, the US government has asked a federal court to unwind two acquisitions that allegedly helped cement a Google monopoly in advertising. Dismantling Google’s tightly integrated ads machine will restore competition and make it harder for Google to extract monopoly profits, according to the US government.

    This and other antitrust suits — though threatening in their own right — simply add pressure to the broader dilemma facing Google as it stares down a new era of potentially tumultuous technological change.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China still wants to control Big Tech. It’s just pulling different strings | CNN Business

    China still wants to control Big Tech. It’s just pulling different strings | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    Investors have raced back into Chinese tech stocks this year, encouraged by an apparent truce in a two-year battle between some of the country’s most powerful regulators and its biggest internet companies.

    But the enthusiasm may prove to be premature; Beijing is tightening its grip on household names such as Alibaba

    (BABA)
    by acquiring so-called “golden shares” that allow government officials to be directly involved in their businesses, including having a say in the content they provide to hundreds of millions of people.

    Earlier this month, a fund controlled by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) took a 1% stake in Alibaba’s digital media subsidiary in Guangzhou, according to business data platform Qichacha. The subsidiary — Guangzhou Lujiao Information Technology — has a portfolio of businesses under its wing, including mobile browser UCWeb and streaming video site Youku Tudou.

    According to Qichacha, a new board member, who has the same name as a mid-level official at the CAC, was appointed to the subsidiary at the same time. Alibaba didn’t respond to CNN request for comments. Calls to the CAC went unanswered.

    According to a person familiar with the matter, the Chinese government is also discussing taking a similar stake in a mainland Chinese subsidiary of Tencent

    (TCEHY)
    , the group that includes WeChat and a vast gaming business. The terms have not been finalized yet, the person said. Tencent

    (TCEHY)
    declined to comment.

    The moves come as Beijing has signaled that its two-year onslaught on the internet industry is coming to an end. As the economy falters, the ruling Communist Party needs the private sector to boost jobs and growth.

    But that doesn’t mean China is changing its attitude towards companies it believes have become too powerful.

    “It wasn’t a change of heart that caused Beijing to pull back its regulatory push on tech companies, it was a concession to economic reality,” said Brock Silvers, chief investment officer for Kaiyuan Capital in Hong Kong.

    “The goal of furthering state control over sprawling tech empires, however, wasn’t abandoned.”

    Instead, Beijing is returning to the “golden shares” approach, by which the state can still assert control over these firms, while moderating its impact on markets, Silvers added.

    “Golden shares” give their owners, usually governments, some level of control over companies, often those that were previously state-owned.

    In China, such shares are called “special management shares” and give the government decisive voting rights or veto power over certain business decisions or — in the case of internet companies — content.

    The policy could present a “nightmare” scenario for foreign investors, said Alex Capri, a research fellow at the Hinrich Foundation.

    That’s because the Biden administration has issued a series of executive orders limiting securities investments in Chinese entities that the US suspects of aiding China’s military.

    “This represents a murky grey zone for investors, as the CCP’s presence spills over into all areas, both military and civil,” Capri said. “American and other foreign investors will struggle to perform due diligence in an opaque Chinese system.”

    The Chinese government first introduced “golden shares” in 2013 with the aim of strengthening its control over state-backed media firms, which were later opened up to private investors. But as the mobile internet took off, it took such shares in a number of private tech firms operating news and video apps to maintain its grip over information on the internet.

    Between 2018 and 2022, several government entities took 1% stakes in popular news and content platforms, including US-listed Sina Weibo

    (SINA)
    , 36kr

    (KRKR)
    , and Qutoutiao

    (QTT)
    , and Hong Kong-listed Kuaishou, according to company filings or public registration records.

    “Beijing’s Golden Share initiative is about embedding the Chinese Communist Party within the nerve-centers of China’s most important internet-content companies,” said Capri. “It’s about achieving pervasive surveillance, censorship and policing capabilities from the inside out,” he added.

    In April 2021, a government entity acquired a 1% stake in a Beijing subsidiary of TikTok’s parent company Bytedance, according to Qichacha.

    The subsidiary controls some Chinese operating licenses for Douyin and Toutiao. Douyin is the country’s most popular short-video app with more than 600 million active users. Toutiao is a news aggregation app.

    Later that year, an executive at TikTok said at a US congressional hearing that TikTok had “no affiliation” with the Bytedance subsidiary.

    Beijing has tried to arrest a rapid slowdown in the country’s economy by hitting pause on the heavy-handed tech crackdown. Chinese Vice Premier Liu He said at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week that China will support the growth of the private sector, while opening its door further to foreign investment.

    But investors may not be so easily enticed to return to China, analysts said.

    The Communist Party may be easing off on fines and penalties, but the “golden shares” approach seeks the same end, which is “control and tight oversight,” said Capri.

    Silver pointed out that not only will government control of listed entities likely raise risks with an increasingly wary US administration, but Western institutional investors may be reluctant to invest alongside Beijing.

    “The risk is that shareholder interests will remain subservient to state interests,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 Committee failed to hold social media companies to account for their role in the Capitol attack, staffers and witnesses say | CNN Business

    Jan. 6 Committee failed to hold social media companies to account for their role in the Capitol attack, staffers and witnesses say | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    “There might be someone getting shot tomorrow.”

    That was the warning from Twitter staff at an internal meeting on Jan. 5, 2021, the eve of the deadly attack on the US Capitol. It wasn’t the only stark warning Twitter management received ahead of the insurrection, according to two former Twitter employees who spoke to the House Jan. 6 Committee.

    But now these witnesses, along with some committee staff, are frustrated, saying the committee failed to adequately hold major social media companies to account for the role they played in the worst attack on the Capitol in 200 years.

    It was a “real missed opportunity,” Anika Collier Navaroli, a former Twitter employee turned whistleblower who gave evidence to the committee, told CNN in an interview last week. “I risked a lot to come forward and speak to the committee and to share the truth about these momentous occasions in history,” Navaroli said.

    CNN spoke to half a dozen people who interacted with and were familiar with the Jan. 6 Committee’s so-called “purple team” – a group that included staff with expertise in extremism and online misinformation. Some witnesses and staff said the committee pulled its punches when it came to Big Tech, failing to include critical parts of the team’s work in its final report. The discontent has poured into public view, with an unpublished draft of the team’s findings leaked and obtained by multiple news organizations, including CNN.

    One source familiar with the probe acknowledged that the committee obtained evidence that social media companies like Twitter largely ignored concerns that were raised internally prior to Jan. 6, but while those platforms should have done something at the time, the panel was limited in its ability to hold them accountable. A lawyer who worked on the committee said the panel did its job and focused on the unique and malign role of then-President Donald Trump in an unprecedented attack on American democracy. They also said the final report outlines structural issues across social media and society that need to be studied further.

    Disagreement about social media companies’ role in the Jan. 6 attack comes as 2023 looks to be a pivotal year for Silicon Valley firms in Washington, DC. Spurred in part by the release of Elon Musk’s so-called “Twitter Files,” House Republicans are set to investigate purported Big Tech censorship, particularly as it pertains to social media companies’ handling of a 2020 New York Post story about Hunter Biden and his laptop. Facebook parent company Meta’s high-stakes decision Wednesday to reinstate Trump on its platforms is also expected to stoke further scrutiny of tech companies’ influence in elections. At the Supreme Court, justices are set to rule this year on a case that could strip key protections afforded to tech companies moderating online speech.

    It isn’t just Navaroli who has taken issue with the committee’s findings. Three of the committee’s own staff members, part of the so-called purple team, published an article earlier this month, sharply criticizing the decisions made by social media companies in the lead up to the attack.

    The final report’s “emphasis on Trump meant important context was left on the cutting room floor,” they wrote.

    “Indeed, the lack of an official Committee report chapter or appendix dedicated exclusively to these matters does not mean our investigation exonerated social media companies for their failure to confront violent rhetoric,” they wrote.

    In wake of the decision, CNN has reviewed thousands of pages of deposition transcripts and other supporting documents the committee has publicly released that provide insight into Silicon Valley’s action and inaction in the critical period between Election Day 2020 and Jan. 6, 2021.

    Navaroli, who worked on Twitter’s safety policy team, told the committee she had repeatedly warned Twitter’s leadership in the lead-up to Jan. 6 about the dangers of not cracking down on what she said was violent rhetoric.

    Navaroli pointed to Trump’s infamous “stand back and stand by” message to the Proud Boys at the first 2020 presidential debate as one instance that incited more violent rhetoric on Twitter.

    Navaroli initially appeared before the committee as an anonymous whistleblower. Part of her testimony was played during the public committee hearings last summer, with her voice distorted to protect her identity. However, she later decided to go public, testifying before the committee for a second time, and speaking to The Washington Post.

    In an interview with CNN, Navaroli said she is speaking out now because she believes it is important for the “truth to be on the record.” She warned that without a full reckoning of social media’s role in the Capitol attack, political violence could once again ignite in the United States and elsewhere around the world, pointing to recent unrest in Brazil where supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro stormed the country’s top government offices.

    The final report from the Jan. 6 Committee stated, “Social media played a prominent role in amplifying erroneous claims of election fraud.”

    But a far more blistering assessment was laid out in an unpublished draft document prepared by committee staff that was obtained by several news organizations, including CNN. Its key findings included:

    • “Social media platforms delayed response to the rise of far-right extremism—and President Trump’s incitement of his supporters—helped to facilitate the attack on January 6th.”
    • “Fear of reprisal and accusations of censorship from the political right compromised policy, process, and decision-making.”
    • “Twitter failed to take actions that could have prevented the spread of incitement to violence after the election.”
    • “Facebook did not fail to grapple with election delegitimization after the election so much as it did not even try.”

    Tech companies would broadly dispute these findings and have repeatedly said they are working to keep their platforms safe.

    Twitter’s previous management repeatedly outlined steps it said it was taking to crack down on hateful and violent rhetoric on its platform prior to Jan. 6, 2021, but stressed it didn’t want to unnecessarily limit free expression. Under Musk’s leadership, Twitter no longer has a responsive communications team, and the company did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    Andy Stone, a spokesperson for Facebook parent company Meta, pointed to an earlier statement from the company where it said it was cooperating with the committee.

    Jacob Glick, an investigative counsel, conducted multiple depositions for the Jan. 6 Committee, including Navaroli's.

    Jacob Glick, an investigative counsel who conducted multiple depositions for the Jan. 6 Committee, including Navaroli’s, told CNN he believes the committee did its job to show “the American public the dangers posed by President Trump’s multilayered attack on our democracy.”

    He said the lack of awareness he believes tech companies have shown about their role in the attack was “stark.”

    “I don’t think social media companies recognize they were dealing with a sustained threat to American democracy,” he said.

    Glick, who now works at the Georgetown Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, said the purple team’s report had not been fact-checked, contains some errors, and should not have been leaked.

    Another source familiar with the committee’s work told CNN, “It couldn’t be clearer that Trump was at the center of this plot to overturn the election. Not everything staff worked on could fit into this extensive report and hearings, including some who wanted their work to be the center of the investigation.”

    How social media platforms write and enforce their rules has become a central and ongoing debate, raising the key question of what power the companies should wield when it comes to politicians like Trump.

    While some, including Navaroli, insist Trump repeatedly broke social media platforms’ rules by inciting violent rhetoric that should have resulted in his removal before Jan. 6, others including Musk and Twitter’s previous management, argue that what politicians say should be made available to as many people as possible so they can be held to account.

    Meta and Twitter have both reversed their bans on Trump.

    “We’re moving backwards and it’s concerning to me,” Navaroli said of the return of prominent election conspiracy theorists to major tech platforms. “History has taught us what happens when political speech on social media companies is allowed to fester unchecked.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Video: How Elon Musk’s Twitter drama impacts Tesla and how ChatGPT can be useful to students on CNN Nightcap | CNN Business

    Video: How Elon Musk’s Twitter drama impacts Tesla and how ChatGPT can be useful to students on CNN Nightcap | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    CNN’s Allison Morrow tells “Nightcap’s” Jon Sarlin that Elon Musk’s Twitter antics are damaging Tesla’s brand. Plus, high school teacher Cherie Shields argues that ChatGPT is an excellent teaching tool and schools are making a mistake if they ban the AI technology. To get the day’s business headlines sent directly to your inbox, sign up for the Nightcap newsletter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta says it will restore Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts | CNN Business

    Meta says it will restore Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Facebook-parent Meta said on Wednesday that it will restore former President Donald Trump’s accounts on Facebook and Instagram in the coming weeks, just over two years after suspending him in the wake of the January 6 Capitol attack.

    “Our determination is that the risk [to public safety] has sufficiently receded,” Meta President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg said in a blog post. “As such, we will be reinstating Mr. Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts in the coming weeks. However, we are doing so with new guardrails in place to deter repeat offenses.”

    Trump could be suspended for as much as two years at a time for violating platform policies in the future, Clegg said.

    With his Facebook and Instagram accounts reactivated, Trump will once again gain access to huge and powerful communications and fundraising platforms just as he ramps up his third bid for the White House.

    The decision, which comes on the heels of a similar move by Twitter, could also further shift the landscape for how a long list of smaller online platforms handle Trump’s accounts.

    It was not immediately clear whether Trump will seize the opportunity to return to the Meta platforms. Trump’s reps did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    In a post on his own platform, Truth Social, Trump acknowledged Meta’s decision to reverse its suspension of his account and said “such a thing should never again happen to a sitting President, or anybody else who is not deserving of retribution.”

    Former President Trump’s team was not given advance notice of Meta’s decision, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. Many of his aides and advisers learned of the decision from media reports. Shortly before the announcement, Meta asked for a last-minute meeting with Trump’s lawyers this evening to discuss his possible reinstatement, but were not told what the final decision was. They were still in the meeting when Meta released the news, the source said.

    Twitter restored Trump’s account in November following its takeover by billionaire Elon Musk, but the former president has not yet resumed tweeting, opting instead to remain on Truth Social.

    But Trump’s campaign earlier this month sent a letter to Meta petitioning the company to unblock his Facebook account, a source familiar with the letter told CNN, making his return more likely. Although Twitter was always Trump’s preferred platform, he has a massive reach on Facebook and Instagram — 34 million followers and 23 million followers, respectively, ahead of his reinstatement. Previous Trump campaigns have lauded the effectiveness of Facebook’s targeted advertising tools and have spent millions running Facebook ads.

    Meta’s decision was quickly criticized by a number of online safety advocates and democratic lawmakers. Congressman Adam Schiff said in a tweet that restoring Trump’s “access to a social media platform to spread his lies and demagoguery is dangerous,” noting that Trump has shown “no remorse” for his actions around the January 6 attack. NAACP President Derrick Johnson called the decision “a prime example of putting profits above people’s safety.”

    But ACLU Director Anthony Romero called the decision “the right call,” joining several other groups in praising the move. He added: “The biggest social media companies are central actors when it comes to our collective ability to speak — and hear the speech of others — online. They should err on the side of allowing a wide range of political speech, even when it offends.”

    The company made the landmark decision to bar Trump from posting on Facebook and Instagram the day after the January 6 attack, in which his supporters stormed the US Capitol in a bid to overturn the 2020 election results.

    Many other platforms did the same in quick succession, but Facebook was clear that it planned to revisit the decision at a later date. After Facebook’s independent Oversight Board recommended that the company clarify what was initially an indefinite suspension, Facebook said the former president would remain restricted from the platform until at least January 7, 2023.

    Meta earlier this month was considering whether to restore Trump’s accounts with the help of a specially formed internal company working group made up of leaders from different parts of the organization, a person familiar with the deliberations told CNN. The group included representatives from the company’s public policy, communications, content policy, and safety and integrity teams, and was being led by Clegg, who previously served as UK Deputy Prime Minister.

    The company said in June 2021 that it would “look to experts to assess whether the risk to public safety has receded” in January 2023 to make a determination about the former president’s account.

    “If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded,” Clegg, then-vice president of global affairs at Meta, said in a statement at the time.

    Clegg said in his Wednesday post that the company believes “the public should be able to hear what their politicians are saying — the good, the bad and the ugly — so that they can make informed choices at the ballot box.” But, he said, “that does not mean there are no limits to what people can say on our platform.”

    In light of his previous violations, Trump will now face “heightened penalties for repeat offenses,” Clegg said, adding that the policy will also apply to other public figures whose accounts are reinstated following suspensions related to civil unrest.

    Clegg told Axios in an interview published Wednesday that the company does not “want — if he is to return to our services — for him to do what he did on January 6, which is to use our services to delegitimize the 2024 election, much as he sought to discredit the 2020 election.”

    “In the event that Mr. Trump posts further violating content, the content will be removed and he will be suspended for between one month and two years, depending on the severity of the violation,” Clegg said. However, the possibility of permanent removal of Trump’s accounts — which Clegg had previously indicated could be a consequence of future violations if his account were to be restored — no longer appears to be on the table.

    For content that doesn’t violate its rules but “contributes to the sort of risk that materialized on January 6th, such as content that delegitimizes an upcoming election or is related to QAnon,” Meta may limit distribution of the posts, Clegg said. The company could, for example, remove the reshare button or keep the posts visible on Trump’s page but not in users’ feeds, even for those who follow him, he said. For repeated instances, the company may restrict access to its advertising tools.

    If Trump again posts content that violates Meta’s rules but “we assess there is a public interest in knowing that Mr. Trump made the statement that outweighs any potential harm” under the company’s newsworthiness policy, Meta may similarly restrict the posts’ distribution but leave them visible on Trump’s page.

    –CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, Kaitlan Collins and Kristen Holmes contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Microsoft quarterly profit falls 12% but cloud computing business shows strength | CNN Business

    Microsoft quarterly profit falls 12% but cloud computing business shows strength | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Microsoft on Tuesday posted weaker-than-expected revenue and a double-digit percentage drop in profit for the final three months of last year amid broader economic uncertainty and reduced demand for personal computers and software.

    The tech giant reported revenue of $52.7 billion for the quarter, a modest 2% increase from the year prior but slightly less than analysts had expected. It reported net income of $16.4 billion, a 12% decline from the year prior.

    The earnings results come at a turbulent moment for Microsoft, and the tech industry as a whole. Microsoft said last week that it plans to lay off 10,000 employees as part of broader cost-cutting measures. In his explanation of the cuts, CEO Satya Nadella pointed to changing demand for digital services years into the pandemic as well as looming recession fears.

    Demand for personal computers, and the Microsoft operating systems that power them, has pulled back after experiencing a boom early in the pandemic. Consulting firm Gartner said earlier this month that worldwide PC shipments fell more than 28% in the fourth quarter of 2022 compared to the same period the prior year. This marked the largest quarterly shipment decline since Gartner began tracking the PC market in the mid-90s.

    On Tuesday, Microsoft reported revenue declines from its Windows OEM operations and from its Xbox content and services lines. Microsoft also said it would incur $800 million in severance expenses from the layoffs announced this month, as well as charges from “changes to our hardware portfolio, and costs related to lease consolidation activities.”

    But the earnings report had some bright spots. Revenue from its cloud computing division, a key area of focus for Microsoft in recent years, increased 22% from the prior year. An analyst at Evercore described the results as “a sigh of relief.”

    Shares of Microsoft rose 4% in after-hours trading Tuesday on the news.

    “The next major wave of computing is being born, as the Microsoft Cloud turns the world’s most advanced AI models into a new computing platform,” CEO Satya Nadella said in a statement accompanying the results. “We are committed to helping our customers use our platforms and tools to do more with less today and innovate for the future in the new era of AI.”

    Earlier this week, Microsoft confirmed it is making a “multibillion dollar” investment into OpenAI, the company behind the viral AI-powered chatbot tool ChatGPT. The deepening partnership between the two companies – Microsoft was an early investor in OpenAI – could help catapult Microsoft as an AI leader and pave the way for the company to incorporate elements of ChatGPT into some of its hallmark applications, such as Outlook and Word.

    In his memo to staffers announcing the job cuts, Nadella said the company will continue to invest in “strategic areas for our future” and pointed to advances in AI as “the next major wave” of computing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DOJ sues Google over its dominance in online advertising market | CNN Business

    DOJ sues Google over its dominance in online advertising market | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Justice Department and eight states sued Google on Tuesday, accusing the company of harming competition with its dominance in the online advertising market and calling for it to be broken up.

    The move marks the Biden administration’s first blockbuster antitrust case against a Big Tech company. The eight states joining the suit include California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia.

    The fresh complaint significantly escalates the risks to Google emanating from Washington, where lawmakers and regulators have frequently raised concerns about the tech giant’s power but have so far failed to pass new legislation or regulations that might rein in the company or its peers.

    For years, Google’s critics have claimed that the company’s extensive role in the ecosystem that enables advertisers to place ads, and for publishers to offer up digital ad space, represents a conflict of interest that Google has exploited anticompetitively.

    In Tuesday’s complaint, a copy of which was viewed by CNN, the Justice Department alleged that Google actively and illegally maintained that dominance by engaging in a campaign to thwart competition. Google gobbled up rivals through anticompetitive mergers, the US government said, and bullied publishers and advertisers into using the company’s proprietary ad technology products.

    As part of the lawsuit, the US government called for Google to be broken up and for the court to order the company to spin off at least its online advertising exchange and its ad server for publishers, if not more.

    Google, the US government alleged, “has corrupted legitimate competition in the ad tech industry by engaging in a systematic campaign to seize control of the wide swath of high-tech tools used by publishers, advertisers, and brokers, to facilitate digital advertising. Having inserted itself into all aspects of the digital advertising marketplace, Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies.”

    The suit was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

    Tuesday’s suit marks the federal government’s second antitrust complaint against Google since 2020, when the Trump administration sued over Google’s alleged anticompetitive harms in search and search advertising. That case is still ongoing. Google has also been the target of antitrust litigation by state and private actors.

    In a statement, Google said the DOJ suit “attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector.”

    “DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow,” a Google spokesperson said, adding that a federal judge last year knocked down a claim that Google colluded with Facebook in a separate antitrust suit led by the state of Texas. That judge also ruled, however, that a number of monopolization claims in the Texas case could move forward.

    The lawsuit is a frontal assault against Google’s massive, primary business of advertising. Google generated $209 billion in advertising revenue in 2021, according to its annual report, a figure representing more than 80% of its total revenue. By comparison, the next largest giant in online advertising, Facebook-parent Meta, generated $115 billion in 2021.

    Third-party estimates suggest that Google and Facebook accounted for the majority of US digital ad revenues, hitting a peak around 2017, with Google taking about a third of the market. Since then, however, others including Amazon have begun encroaching on that business.

    The US complaint echoes concerns that have prompted similar antitrust investigations in the United Kingdom and in the European Union.

    Google not only controls the platform publishers use to sell online ad inventory, the Justice Department alleged Tuesday, but also the advertising tools marketers use to claim that inventory and the exchange that facilitates those transactions.

    “Google’s pervasive power over the entire ad tech industry has been questioned by its own digital advertising executives,” the complaint said, “at least one of whom aptly begged the question: ‘[I]s there a deeper issue with us owning the platform, the exchange, and a huge network? The analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE.’”

    Tuesday’s complaint marks an opening salvo against Big Tech by DOJ’s antitrust chief, Jonathan Kanter. Kanter has spent months laying the groundwork for a broader offensive against the tech industry’s most dominant companies, reflecting commitments by President Joe Biden and others in the US government to hold powerful firms accountable. Under Kanter, Justice Department antitrust officials have pushed to bring more cases to trial as well as to prosecute cases involving unconventional legal theories.

    In 2020, House lawmakers released a 450-page report finding that Google, along with Amazon, Apple and Facebook, hold “monopoly power” in key business segments. The report was the result of a 16-month investigation in which congressional staff reviewed corporate documents and interviewed the tech industry’s many customers and rivals. It concluded, among other things, that Google was uniquely positioned to benefit from its powerful role in the online ad industry.

    “With a sizable share in the ad exchange market and the ad intermediary market, and as a leading supplier of ad space, Google simultaneously acts on behalf of publishers and advertisers, while also trading for itself,” the report said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Spotify to cut 6% of its workforce | CNN Business

    Spotify to cut 6% of its workforce | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Spotify

    (SPOT)
    said Monday that it will cut 6% of its workforce to reduce costs, joining tech companies including Amazon

    (AMZN)
    and Microsoft

    (MSFT)
    in slashing headcount as the global economy slows.

    In a letter to employees posted on the company’s website, CEO Daniel Ek took full responsibility for the job cuts, which he called “difficult but necessary.”

    “Like many other leaders, I hoped to sustain the strong tailwinds from the pandemic and believed that our broad global business and lower risk to the impact of a slowdown in ads would insulate us. In hindsight, I was too ambitious in investing ahead of our revenue growth,” he said.

    The Stockholm-headquartered music streaming business had about 9,800 employees globally as of September 30, according to an earnings report.

    The company’s stock, which has nearly halved in value over the past 12 months, gained more than 4% in premarket trading in New York. Spotify’s share price has risen 24% since the start of the year, Refinitiv data shows.

    Over the past few months, major tech companies have swiftly reversed a pandemic hiring spree that saw them add thousands of workers to keep up with a surge in demand from households and businesses for services such as online shopping and videoconferencing.

    The same companies have recently made deep cuts to their workforces, as inflation weighs on consumer spending and rising interest rates squeeze funding. The demand for digital services during the pandemic has also waned as people return to their offline lives.

    Over the past three months, Amazon

    (AMZN)
    , Google

    (GOOGL)
    , Microsoft

    (MSFT)
    and Facebook

    (FB)
    -parent Meta have announced plans to cut more than 50,000 employees from their collective ranks.

    The recent cuts in most cases amount to a relatively small percentage of each company’s overall headcount, essentially erasing the last year of gains for some while leaving them with enormous workforces.

    Spotify’s decision to shed about 590 jobs is part of a wider reorganization to improve efficiency and “speed up decision-making,” according to Ek. As part of the changes, engineering and product work will be centralized. Chief content officer Dawn Ostroff had also decided to leave the company, Ek said.

    Spotify reported a loss of €228 million ($248 million) in its most recent financial quarter through September 30, as operating expenses shot up by 65%, according to a company presentation to investors.

    In 2022, operating expenses grew at twice the rate of the company’s revenue, Ek said.

    “That would have been unsustainable long-term in any climate, but with a challenging macro environment, it would be even more difficult to close the gap,” he told employees in Monday’s letter. “As you are well aware, over the last few months we’ve made a considerable effort to rein-in costs, but it simply hasn’t been enough.”

    — Clare Duffy contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UK’s Crown Estate sues Twitter over alleged non-payment of rent in London offices | CNN Business

    UK’s Crown Estate sues Twitter over alleged non-payment of rent in London offices | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    The Crown Estate, a British commercial property portfolio historically belonging to the monarch, began court proceedings against Twitter over the tech giant’s alleged non-payment of rent in its London offices, a spokesperson of the property business told CNN on Monday.

    The Crown Estate is run by an independent board and boasts a collection of commercial buildings and land which generate profits that are collected by the British government for public spending.

    According to the Crown Estate spokesperson, the legal action follows previous contact with Twitter regarding the rental arrears on its office space at 20 Air Street, London. Discussions between the companies are ongoing, the spokesperson added.

    CNN has reached out to Twitter for comment.

    Twitter currently faces at least one other lawsuit over unpaid rent. A commercial landlord is suing Twitter for breach of contract after the company allegedly failed to pay rent for one of its offices in San Francisco.

    The lawsuit concerns Twitter’s office space at 650 California Street, not its main headquarters on Market Street. But it came after media reports said Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, had stopped paying rent on Twitter’s office space globally — including for its headquarters — and had told employees not to pay company vendors, in an apparent effort to cut costs.

    Musk acquired Twitter for $44 billion, including a substantial amount of debt financing.

    – CNN’s Brian Fung contributed to this report

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta, Twitter, Microsoft and others urge Supreme Court not to allow lawsuits against tech algorithms | CNN Business

    Meta, Twitter, Microsoft and others urge Supreme Court not to allow lawsuits against tech algorithms | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    A wide range of businesses, internet users, academics and even human rights experts defended Big Tech’s liability shield Thursday in a pivotal Supreme Court case about YouTube algorithms, with some arguing that excluding AI-driven recommendation engines from federal legal protections would cause sweeping changes to the open internet.

    The diverse group weighing in at the Court ranged from major tech companies such as Meta, Twitter and Microsoft to some of Big Tech’s most vocal critics, including Yelp and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Even Reddit and a collection of volunteer Reddit moderators got involved.

    In friend-of-the-court filings, the companies, organizations and individuals said the federal law whose scope the Court could potentially narrow in the case — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — is vital to the basic function of the web. Section 230 has been used to shield all websites, not just social media platforms, from lawsuits over third-party content.

    The question at the heart of the case, Gonzalez v. Google, is whether Google can be sued for recommending pro-ISIS content to users through its YouTube algorithm; the company has argued that Section 230 precludes such litigation. But the plaintiffs in the case, the family members of a person killed in a 2015 ISIS attack in Paris, have argued that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm can be held liable under a US antiterrorism law.

    In their filing, Reddit and the Reddit moderators argued that a ruling enabling litigation against tech-industry algorithms could lead to future lawsuits against even non-algorithmic forms of recommendation, and potentially targeted lawsuits against individual internet users.

    “The entire Reddit platform is built around users ‘recommending’ content for the benefit of others by taking actions like upvoting and pinning content,” their filing read. “There should be no mistaking the consequences of petitioners’ claim in this case: their theory would dramatically expand Internet users’ potential to be sued for their online interactions.”

    Yelp, a longtime antagonist to Google, argued that its business depends on serving relevant and non-fraudulent reviews to its users, and that a ruling creating liability for recommendation algorithms could break Yelp’s core functions by effectively forcing it to stop curating all reviews, even those that may be manipulative or fake.

    “If Yelp could not analyze and recommend reviews without facing liability, those costs of submitting fraudulent reviews would disappear,” Yelp wrote. “If Yelp had to display every submitted review … business owners could submit hundreds of positive reviews for their own business with little effort or risk of a penalty.”

    Section 230 ensures platforms can moderate content in order to present the most relevant data to users out of the huge amounts of information that get added to the internet every day, Twitter argued.

    “It would take an average user approximately 181 million years to download all data from the web today,” the company wrote.

    If the Supreme Court were to advance a new interpretation of Section 230 that safeguarded platforms’ right to remove content, but excluded protections on their right to recommend content, it would open up broad new questions about what it means to recommend something online, Meta argued in its filing.

    “If merely displaying third-party content in a user’s feed qualifies as ‘recommending’ it, then many services will face potential liability for virtually all the third-party content they host,” Meta wrote, “because nearly all decisions about how to sort, pick, organize, and display third-party content could be construed as ‘recommending’ that content.”

    A ruling finding that tech platforms can be sued for their recommendation algorithms would jeopardize GitHub, the vast online code repository used by millions of programmers, said Microsoft.

    “The feed uses algorithms to recommend software to users based on projects they have worked on or showed interest in previously,” Microsoft wrote. It added that for “a platform with 94 million developers, the consequences [of limiting Section 230] are potentially devastating for the world’s digital infrastructure.”

    Microsoft’s search engine Bing and its social network, LinkedIn, also enjoy algorithmic protections under Section 230, the company said.

    According to New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, it is virtually impossible to design a rule that singles out algorithmic recommendation as a meaningful category for liability, and could even “result in the loss or obscuring of a massive amount of valuable speech,” particularly speech belonging to marginalized or minority groups.

    “Websites use ‘targeted recommendations’ because those recommendations make their platforms usable and useful,” the NYU filing said. “Without a liability shield for recommendations, platforms will remove large categories of third-party content, remove all third-party content, or abandon their efforts to make the vast amount of user content on their platforms accessible. In any of these situations, valuable free speech will disappear—either because it is removed or because it is hidden amidst a poorly managed information dump.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Felix Auger-Aliassime’s loss means every player featured in Netflix’s ‘Break Point’ is no longer in Australian Open | CNN

    Felix Auger-Aliassime’s loss means every player featured in Netflix’s ‘Break Point’ is no longer in Australian Open | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    And then there were none. Felix Auger-Aliassime’s fourth-round loss at the Australian Open means none of the stars of Netflix’s new tennis documentary ‘Break Point’ have made it through to the second week in Melbourne.

    Such poor showing from the series’ stars has led to talk of a ‘Netflix curse’ as player after player crashed out of the tournament.

    Canada’s Auger-Aliassime was the last one standing, but the sixth seed fell 6-4 3-6 6-7 (2-7) 6-7 (3-7) to the Czech underdog Jiri Lehecka.

    The first five episodes of the documentary, which focuses on the next generation of tennis stars, was streamed earlier this month.

    Its aim is to showcase the sport’s younger talent to the world, the ones tipped to step out of the shadows of Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic (and, at the time of filming, Roger Federer and Serena Williams as they hadn’t yet retired).

    Maria Sakkari, Taylor Fritz, Casper Ruud, Matteo Berrettini, Ons Jabeur, Thanasi Kokkinakis have all been eliminated from the first grand slam of the year – which began on January 16 – while Nick Kyrgios, Ajla Tomljanovic and Paula Badosa withdrew before the start of the tournament because of injuries.

    It means none of the show’s players, who have all featured in the world’s top 10 at some point in their careers, have made it to the quarterfinals.

    Speaking earlier this week, Auger-Aliassime laughed off talk of a so-called curse.

    “I thought it was funny,” he told reporters. “I don’t know; I don’t think it’s connected.

    “Maybe the players that lost, maybe they do feel like it’s connected, somehow. I don’t think they do. I don’t think it’s connected, anyhow. It’s funny how things work out sometimes.”

    The hashtag ‘NetflixCurse’ has been trending on Twitter, with many users writing that the “Netflix curse is now complete” following the Canadian’s exit.

    Earlier this week, Netflix’s UK & Ireland Twitter account tweeted: “To clarify: this is purely a coincidence,” in response to a tweet about the so-called curse.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Teachers are adapting to concerns about a powerful new AI tool | CNN Business

    Teachers are adapting to concerns about a powerful new AI tool | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    When Kristen Asplin heard about a powerful new AI chatbot tool called ChatGPT going viral online recently with its ability to write frighteningly good essays in seconds, she worried about how her students could use it to cheat.

    Asplin, a professor at University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg, soon joined a new Facebook group for teachers like herself to swap concerns and suggestions on how to restructure their lessons and assignments in response to ChatGPT. The tool, which launched in late November, can create detailed responses to simple prompts like “Who was the 25th president of the United States?” as well as answers to more complex questions like “What political developments led to the fall of the Roman Empire?”

    Asplin eventually decided to tweak her approach to written assignments. Instead of focusing just on the final product, which could potentially be spit out easily by ChatGPT, she’s now asking students to hand in their papers at various stages of the writing process.

    “I am emphasizing and being more vigilant about the early steps in the writing process so I can see their progress,” Asplin said about her new approach to class assignments. “This will give students more confidence in the process of writing so they are less likely to be desperate enough to cheat. It will also show me their work along the way so they can’t just type a prompt in the program and have the computer do their work for them.”

    In the weeks since the artificial intelligence research group OpenAI launched ChatGPT, which is trained on a massive trove of information online to create its responses, the tool has been used to write articles (with more than a couple factual inaccuracies) for at least one news publication; penned lyrics in the style of various artists (one of whom later responded, “this song sucks”) and drafted research paper abstracts that fooled some scientists.

    But while many may view the tool as a novelty with unknown long-term consequences, a growing number of schools and teachers are concerned about its immediate impact on students and their ability to cheat on assignments. The Facebook group that Asplin joined, for example, has added more than 800 members in just the few weeks since it was created.

    Some educators are now moving with remarkable speed to rethink their assignments in response to ChatGPT, even as it remains unclear how widespread use is of the tool among students and how harmful it could really be to learning. In interviews with CNN, some college instructors said they are shifting back to in-classroom essays for the first time in years, and others are requiring more personalized essays. Some teachers said they’ve also heard of students being required to film short videos that elaborate on their thought process. Public schools in New York City and Seattle, meanwhile, have already banned students and teachers from using ChatGPT on the district’s networks and devices.

    While there have been some anecdotes of cheating cases circling the internet and stirring fears of more to come, some teachers are urging their peers not to overreact to a new technology.

    “There’s been a mass hysteria response to ChatGPT potentially ruining writing, while other people think it’s actually a good thing,” said Alan Reid, an associate professor of English at Coastal Carolina University. “We have to try to straddle the two sides and recognize the drawbacks alongside the positives.”

    In recent weeks, Kevin Pittle, an associate professor at Biola University in California, has found himself thinking about what ChatGPT knows.

    “Before assigning materials, I thoroughly interrogate ChatGPT to see what it does or does not ‘know’ about the material or have access to,” he said. With that in mind, he said he’s now requiring his students to show citations of specific sources that are unavailable to ChatGPT, including textbooks, articles behind paywalls, and materials produced after ChatGPT was trained on internet data available as of 2021.

    And he’s not stopping there.

    “ChatGPT doesn’t ‘have soul’ – its fictional reflections are generally pretty lifeless – so in one course I am requiring much more ‘soul-searching’ and reflective journaling than ChatGPT seems able to fake,” he said.

    OpenAI previously told CNN it made ChatGPT available as a preview to learn from real world use. A spokesperson called that step a “critical part of developing and deploying capable, safe AI systems.”

    “We don’t want ChatGPT to be used for misleading purposes in schools or anywhere else, so we’re already developing mitigations to help anyone identify text generated by that system,” the spokesperson said. “We look forward to working with educators on useful solutions, and other ways to help teachers and students benefit from artificial intelligence.”

    Some companies such as Turnitin are already actively working on ChatGPT plagiarism detection tools that could help teachers identify when assignments are written by the tool. (Turnitin already works with 16,000 schools, publishers and corporations with its other plagiarism detection tools). Princeton student Edward Tuan told CNN more than 95,000 people have already tried the beta version of his own ChatGPT detection feature, called ZeroGPT, noting there has been “incredible demand among teachers” so far.

    The concern extends beyond the United States. Alex Steel, the director of teaching strategy and a professor of law at the University of New South Wales, said a number of universities across Australia have announced a move back to closed book exams.

    “There is an increasing number of academics concerned that they will not be able to detect AI-written answers,” he told CNN. “Partly the concerns are driven by a lack of understanding from teachers of what sort of questions might be susceptible … so staff may push for return to exams until [these issues] can be addressed.”

    Not all teachers are looking for ways to crack down on ChatGPT. Reid, the professor at Coastal Carolina University, believes teachers should work with ChatGPT and teach best practices in the classroom.

    Reid said teachers could encourage students to plug an assignment question into the tool and have them compare that result to what they personally wrote. “This could also allow a teaching opportunity for students to see what they missed, analyze the various approaches they could have taken or use it as a starting point to help with an outline,” Reid said.

    He argued there will always be ways for students to cheat online, so teaching them how ChatGPT may improve their own writing could be a practical step forward.

    “The burden falls onto the educators – and many don’t want to be police in the classroom,” he said. “The way to handle it is for teachers to examine their own practices and think about how it can be used positively. If they ignore this thing and don’t know anything about it, that leaves the door open for students to use it to cheat and get away with it.”

    The OpenAI website ChatGPT about page on laptop computer arranged in the Brooklyn borough of New York, US, on Thursday, Jan. 12, 2023.

    Leslie Layne, an English and linguistics professor at the University of Lynchburg in Virginia, agrees. She now plans to teach students how ChatGPT could improve their writing.

    “ChatGPT can give students a running start, so they’re not starting on a blank page. But it doesn’t come close to a finished product,” she said. “We want students to include more sourcing and evidence, so it could be used as something to build on.”

    She likened ChatGPT to the outcry around calculators when they first came out. “People were very concerned we would lose the ability to do basic math,” she said. “Now we carry one wherever we go with our phones, and it is so helpful.”

    Layne said teachers could consider having students critique how ChatGPT handled an assignment question, teach students how to find the best prompt for the best response, and have ChatGPT argue one side of a topic and a student argue the other side.

    “Like with other new technologies, this could be a tool instructors use to help students express their ideas,” she said. “Students just have to learn how to improve its writing and adapt it to their own voice.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link