ReportWire

Tag: internet and www

  • 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

  • Instagram rolls out ‘quiet mode’ for when users want to focus | CNN Business

    Instagram rolls out ‘quiet mode’ for when users want to focus | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Instagram on Thursday announced a new feature called “quiet mode,” which aims to help users focus and set boundaries with friends and followers.

    When the option is enabled, all notifications will be paused and the profile’s activity status will change to ‘In quiet mode.” If someone sends a direct message during this time, Instagram will automatically send an auto-reply notifying the sender that “quiet mode” is activated.

    While the feature applies to all users, Instagram appears to be focusing on teens. Instagram is pitching it as a tool to help with studying and prompting teens to turn on the feature “when they spend a specific amount of time on Instagram late at night.”

    The tool will roll out to users in the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and plans to add it to more countries in the future.

    The tool is the latest example of instagram offering users more ways to manage their usage, after years of scrutiny over how much time people – and especially teens – spend on various social media applications, and the harms it can pose to their mental health.

    “These updates are part of our ongoing work to ensure people have experiences that work for them, and that they have more control over the time they spend online and the types of content they see,” the company said in a blog post.

    As part of that effort, the platform is also introducing features to give users more control over what shows up in their Explore feed. For example, it’s now possible to mark content with a “Not Interested” label to prevent similar content from showing up in the future. Instagram is also introducing an option to block words or lists of words, emojis or hashtags, such as #fitness or #recipes, from being recommended in the Explore feed.

    Instagram is updating its parental supervision tools, too. When a teen updates a setting, parents can receive a notification so they can talk to their teen about the change. Parents will also be able to view accounts their teen has blocked.

    In a series of congressional hearings in 2021, executives from Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and Snapchat faced tough questions from lawmakers over how their platforms can lead younger users to harmful content, damage mental health and body image (particularly among teenage girls), and lacked sufficient parental controls and safeguards to protect teens.

    The social media companies vowed to make changes, and Instagram in particular has made many. It has since introduced an educational hub for parents with resources, tips and articles from experts on user safety, and rolled out a tool that allows guardians to see how much time their kids spend on Instagram and set time limits.

    Another Instagram feature encouraged users to take a break from the app, such as suggesting they take a deep breath, write something down, check a to-do list or listen to a song, after a predetermined amount of time. The company has also said it’s taking a “stricter approach” to the content it recommends to teens and actively nudges them toward different topics, such as architecture and travel destinations, if they’ve been dwelling on any type of content for too long.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What we learned at Davos: The economy is a mess, but there’s still hope | CNN Business

    What we learned at Davos: The economy is a mess, but there’s still hope | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business’ Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber? You can sign up right here. You can listen to an audio version of the newsletter by clicking the same link.


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Friday marks the end of the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, an elite gathering of some of the wealthiest people and world leaders.

    The glitzy retreat into the Swiss Alps looks increasingly out of date as the biggest war in Europe since 1945 deepens splits in the world economy. But that doesn’t mean it’s not important.

    The meetings between CEOs, politicians, and global figures at Davos can help set the tone for the year ahead. Here are some of the key talking points from this week.

    It’s a mess: The big stories coming out of Davos this year are full of phrases like “fragmenting global economy,” “economic uncertainty” and “the year of inflation.”

    While many executives and economists are now striking a more optimistic tone, global leaders are still fretting about the economic outlook. That’s not surprising since they’re contending with worrisome uncertainties — Russia’s war in Ukraine is still raging, inflation and interest rates remain elevated, there are looming energy and food crises, supply chain kinks and the debt limit standoff in the United States, not to mention the threat of global recession.

    The meeting began with a new report by the WEF that dubbed this decade the “turbulent 20s” and the “age of the polycrisis.” Business executives, politicians and academics, the report said, are bracing for a gloomy world battered by intersecting crises, as rising volatility and depleted resilience boost the odds of painful simultaneous shocks.

    Gita Gopinath, the number two official at the International Monetary Fund, said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that the IMF is worried globalization is in retreat. “We’re very concerned about geoeconomic fragmentation,” she said. The issue had come up a lot in meetings with member countries at the conference, she added.

    CEOs and political officials are also worried about the United States hitting its borrowing cap on Thursday, forcing the Treasury Department to start taking “extraordinary measures” to keep the government open.

    If an agreement isn’t reached, markets could plunge (like they did the last time this happened in 2011) and the United States risks having its credit rating downgraded again. The situation is a “mess,” said Peter Orszag, CEO of financial advisory at Lazard.

    JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon told CNBC from Davos on Thursday that the reputation of the United States as creditworthy is “sacrosanct.” To even question it, he said, is the wrong thing to do. “That is just a part of the financial structure of the world. This is not something you should be playing games with at all.”

    But it may not be that bad: Many leaders’ economic forecasts actually struck a semi-positive tone, even as they factored in strong headwinds.

    So far, energy supplies have held up in Europe, and the US and China are engaging in diplomatic relations — Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He met in Zurich on Wednesday.

    China’s removal of strict coronavirus restrictions late last year is also expected to unleash a wave of spending that may offset economic weakness in the United States and Europe.

    Climate change was a hot topic: The rich and powerful do love to flock to Davos in their carbon-emitting private jets to discuss climate change. But this year, severe warnings were issued to global leaders.

    The UN Secretary General accused fossil fuel producers and their financial backers of “racing to expand production, knowing full well that their business model is inconsistent with human survival.”

    Speaking at Davos on Wednesday, António Guterres said the commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels is “going up in smoke.”

    “We are flirting with climate disaster. Every week brings a new climate horror story,” he said.

    Swedish activist Greta Thunberg also made her way to Switzerland and delivered a “cease and desist letter” to fossil fuel CEOs — signed by more than 800,000 people.

    The AI revolution is here: Some CEOs at Davos admitted that they’re using the revolutionary new AI bot, ChatGPT, to do their work for them, reports my colleague Julia Horowitz.

    Jeff Maggioncalda, the CEO of online learning provider Coursera, said that he uses the tool to bang out emails.

    “I use it as a writing assistant and as a thought partner,” Maggioncalda told CNN from Davos.

    Christian Lanng, CEO of digital supply chain platform Tradeshift, said he uses the ChatGPT to write emails and claims no one has noticed the difference. He even had it perform some accounting work, a service for which Tradeshift currently employs an expensive professional services firm.

    “I see these technologies acting as a copilot, helping people do more with less,” Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told an audience in Davos this week.

    There’s a saying on Wall Street that bad news for the economy is actually good news for the stock market and vice versa, reports my colleague Paul R. La Monica.

    That’s because investors often bet that dismal headlines will eventually prompt the Federal Reserve and other central banks to cut interest rates and provide more stimulus that can help boost corporate profits…and stock prices.

    But the debt ceiling debate in Washington is changing all of that.

    Wednesday’s big market sell-off and the continued slide Thursday might represent a turning point for market sentiment. Still, after a promising start to the year, stocks have seemingly taken a turn for the worse. Bad news actually might be bad news.

    “We’ve been snuggled up in expectations of a soft landing for the US economy,” said Kit Juckes, chief global foreign exchange strategist at Societe Generale, in a report Thursday. “Take away the blanket and it feels chilly.”

    Netflix announced Thursday that its founder Reed Hastings is stepping down as co-CEO at the company and will serve as executive chairman. Hastings will be replaced by co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, reports my colleague Clare Duffy.

    Under Hastings’ leadership, Netflix disrupted legacy movie rental companies like Blockbuster and helped shake up Hollywood by kicking off an arms race investing in original content.

    Last year, however, Netflix saw its stock and reputation take a hit after losing subscribers amid heightened competition from rival streaming services. In response, Netflix introduced a lower-priced, ad-supported tier for the first time in its history.

    Those changes may be paying off. In its earnings report on Thursday, the streamer said it added more than 7.6 million subscribers during the final three months of last year, well above the 4.5 million additions it had projected, for a total of more than 230 million paying subscribers worldwide.

    “Reed Hastings stepping down from his current role raises a lot of questions about Netflix’s future strategy,” Jamie Lumbley, analyst at investment firm Third Bridge, said in a statement. “While the subscriber growth numbers are encouraging, revenue growth is sluggish with the backdrop of a potential recession looming on everyone’s mind.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Davos conspiracy theories used to live on fringe corners of the internet. Now they’ve gone mainstream | CNN Business

    Davos conspiracy theories used to live on fringe corners of the internet. Now they’ve gone mainstream | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    The World Economic Forum’s annual meeting at Davos has long been a lightning rod for conspiracy theories. Extremist figures such as Infowars host Alex Jones have reliably used the event to drive up fear and paranoia about sinister schemes the “globalists” are supposedly plotting.

    In the past, however, these farcical conspiracy theories have largely been confined to the fringe corners of the internet — places like Infowars. But in recent years, that has changed. The radical ideas promoted by the likes of Jones have gone mainstream, having been popularized by some of the most influential personalities in right-wing media.

    Take Glenn Beck for example. The right-wing media personality, who wrote a conspiratorial book called “The Great Reset” playing off the WEF’s 2020 Covid theme, mocked the idea on Tuesday that conspiracy theories circulate around the event, while simultaneously giving oxygen to some of those very theories when he interviewed a guest who claimed, unchallenged, that the gathered world leaders “want you to eat insects rather than meat.”

    A version of this article first appeared in the “Reliable Sources” newsletter. Sign up for the daily digest chronicling the evolving media landscape here.

    It’s not just Beck who is using the event to push this fringe rhetoric. New Twitter owner Elon Musk, who responded on Sunday to a conspiratorial thread about the gathering at Davos, said the “S in ESG,” which stands for WEF’s “environmental, social, and governance” criteria, “stands for Satanic.” (Musk also claimed he was invited to the gathering, but organizers said he was not on the guest list.)

    Alex Friedfeld, associate director with the ADL Center on Extremism, told me Tuesday that the use of extreme rhetoric and the endorsement of conspiracy theories from leading voices on the right has resulted in the outlandish claims reaching far more people than they once did.

    “The fact is that these conspiracies have bounced around in more fringe parts of the internet,” Friedfeld said. “But when you have folks like Tucker Carlson or Glenn Beck — they start to normalize these conspiracies, they expose millions of more people to these ideas.”

    In particular, Friedfeld pointed to “The Great Reset” conspiracy theories, noting that the term has “largely been divorced” at this point from its 2020 Covid origins and become “a broad brand for conspiracies” about how global elites are plotting to use the masses for their own benefits. Friedfeld said that, in particular, the use of the term “The Great Reset” by mainstream figures is cause for alarm because it can send people down a rabbit hole.

    “You go searching for whatever version they’re talking about on Fox News and all of a sudden you’re exposed to all these other conspiracies that fall under the same umbrella,” Friedfeld explained.

    The Associated Press’ Sophia Tulp reported this week that use of “The Great Reset” has been on a steady rise at Fox News. Tulp said the term was mentioned on the right-wing talk channel 60 times in 2022, up from 30 mentions in 2021, and 20 in 2020. Tulp added it was most mentioned on Carlson’s show and Laura Ingraham’s.

    The danger of conspiracy theories has not been lost on attendees at Davos. On a Tuesday panel moderated by Brian Stelter, A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times, described disinformation as one of the most pressing problems facing society.

    “I think if you look at this question of disinformation, I think it maps basically to every other major challenge that we are grappling with as a society, and particularly the most existential among them,” Sulzberger said. “So, disinformation and in the broader set of misinformation, conspiracy, propaganda, clickbait … the broader mix of bad information that’s corrupting the information ecosystem, what it attacks is trust.”

    “And once you see trust decline, what you then see is a society start to fracture, and so you see people fracture along tribal lines and, you know, that immediately undermines pluralism,” Sulzberger added. “And the undermining of pluralism is probably the most dangerous thing that can happen to a democracy. So I really think if you’re spending this week thinking about the health of democracies and democratic erosion, I think it’s really import to work your way back up to where this starts.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Social media hunting stars and their company ordered to pay more than $100,000 and probation for illegal hunts | CNN

    Social media hunting stars and their company ordered to pay more than $100,000 and probation for illegal hunts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Josh and Sarah Bowmar, a couple with a strong following on social media for their hunting videos, were sentenced Tuesday as part of a plea agreement for breaking hunting regulations during some of the events they posted online.

    The couple – along with their company, Bowmar Bowhunting – were placed on three years probation and ordered to pay more than $130,000 in fines, restitution and forfeiture.

    The terms of their probation include that the couple “shall not hunt or otherwise engage in any activities associated with hunting, limited to within the District of Nebraska,” according to court documents.

    The Bowmars were accused of conspiring with a hunt guiding and outfitting company in Nebraska to illegally hunt deer using bait traps. Under Nebraska law, it is illegal to set food to attract animals to a hunting site. Prosecutors also alleged Sarah Bowmar killed a wild turkey without a valid permit.

    It is a violation of the federal Lacey Act to break hunting laws in one state and take the illegally obtained game to another state, and federal prosecutors alleged the Bowmars took the deer and turkey they illegally killed in Nebraska out of state.

    The Bowmars and their company entered guilty pleas to one count of conspiracy and the government dropped four other counts.

    The couple received no jail time.

    In a statement sent to CNN, Josh and Sarah Bowmar said that they felt that the prosecutors’ decision to drop the baiting and poaching charges was “fair and true to what happened with that outfitter 9 years ago.”

    “We did plead guilty to conspiracy, which means we should have known better about hunting at that outfitter and should have paid more attention to what was going on behind closed doors—but we did not, and for that, we take complete responsibility,” their statement said.

    “We’ve learned some very valuable lessons from this experience and our mistakes and we look forward to doing our best to leave a positive footprint on the hunting community and involving our children in the boundless joys of the great outdoors.”

    The Bowmar Bowhunting YouTube channel has more than 300,000 subscribers and its page has more than 340,000 followers on Instagram.

    [ad_2]

    Source link