10/05/17 - Free software to reveal how Facebook election posts are targeted

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/03/free-software-reveal-facebook-election-posts-targeted-chrome-extension

The article talks about how a Google Chrome extension has been made which aims to show audiences, especially those intending to vote in the next General Election, the different narrative agendas in new articles or websites. This is done after the increase in fake news or social media sites being used by different campaigns to promote specific propaganda. It will allow voters to track how the main parties insert political messages into their Facebook feeds calibrated to appeal on the basis of personal information they have already made public online.

• A tool exposing how voters are targeted with tailored propaganda on Facebook has been launched in response to what is likely to be the most extensive social media campaign in general election history.
• The free software, called Who Targets Me?, can be added to a Google Chrome browser and will allow voters to track how the main parties insert political messages into their Facebook feeds calibrated to appeal on the basis of personal information they have already made public online.
• It aims to show who campaigns are targeting, how much the parties are spending and will shed light on whether targeted adverts are crossing the boundary into “fake news”. 
• The Conservatives have rehired Craig Elder and Tom Edmonds, the digital consultants who worked on the 2015 election battle, in which the party spent £1.2m spent on digital campaigning, against Labour’s £160,000. 
• This time, Labour is understood to be ready to spend around £1m.
• “For the good of our democracy, it’s time to throw some light on this dark and unregulated area of campaign spending,” said Sam Jeffers, who has helped to devise the software, which is available as a browser extension.

Personally, I think this is fantastic, it will essentially show how voters are being targetted by online news. This means that audiences will be able to see how they are being influenced in a way. With traditional platforms, editorial content allows influence and particular agendas a lot more obvious but due to the fact that digital media doesn't have this mediation, it makes a lot more easier for fake news to affect audiences. This method of allowing audiences to see how they are being targetted gives the power to the audiences but also making online news free from specific mediation of corporate powers.

10/05/17 - Facebook Live: Zuckerberg adds 3,000 moderators in wake of murders

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/03/facebook-live-zuckerberg-adds-3000-moderators-murders

The article talks about how Facebook has pledged to increase the amount of content reviewers it has by hiring more moderators. This is an action that comes after a lot of violent and inappropriate content has been shown using Facebook Live which has brought the social media site under a lot of heavy criticism over the past month or so. The social media site has received a lot of negative criticism after it was unable to respond with immediacy to take down offensive or violent content on its Facebook Live feature, with videos of killing staying up for more than 24 hours.

• Facebook’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has pledged to add 3,000 more content reviewers and invest in tools to help remove objectionable content more quickly
• Over the last few months, footage of shootings, murders, rapes and assaults has been streamed on Facebook.
• Facebook’s chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg said: “Keeping people safe is our top priority. We won’t stop until we get it right.”
• Facebook has been criticised for its lack of expediency over the removing of objectionable content.
• Two videos of a Thai man killing his 11-month-old daughter in April were available for 24 hours before being removed, and were viewed over 370,000 times
• In March, a 15-year-old girl from Chicago was sexually assaulted by five or six men or boys, which was broadcast live to Facebook with at least 40 people watching.

Personally, I think it is a good first step towards greater content control of explicit content on Facebook. I believe that greater filtering and content control of explicit content will be good for the social media. Furthermore, an increase in staff members for moderation will mean a much more quicker response from Facebook staff when it comes to reporting. This will then in turn encourage people to report explicit content that breaks the site's rules or even laws, and therefore make a better and safer environment for users.

03/05/17 - Google and Facebook bring in one-fifth of global ad revenue

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/02/google-and-facebook-bring-in-one-fifth-of-global-ad-revenue

The article talks about how Google and Facebook attracted one-fifth of global advertising spending last year, nearly double the figure of five years ago. Combined with Alphabet and Facebook, other digital platforms such as Baidu, Microsoft, Yahoo, Verizon,Twitter generated $132.8bn of internet ad revenues in 2016, accounting for nearly three-quarters of all internet ad spend, and nearly one-quarter of total ad spending.

• Google and Facebook attracted one-fifth of global advertising spending last year, nearly double the figure of five years ago, research shows.
• Twitter is the fastest-growing media owner, increasing ad revenue by 734% between 2012 and 2016.
• Internet-only media companies are grabbing the biggest slices of the online advertising market, while traditional news publishers have fallen far behind and been forced to make cutbacks.
• Google, owned by parent company Alphabet, is by far the biggest media owner in the world and attracted $79.4bn (£61.5bn) in ad revenues in 2016, three times more than the second-largest, Facebook, which pulled in $26.9bn, according to Zenith. The previous year, Alphabet took $67.4bn of ad revenues and Facebook $17.1bn.
• Together, the two companies accounted for nearly 20% of global advertising spending last year, up from 16.3% in 2015 and 10.6% in 2012.

Personally, it is interesting to see Marxism's theory and Pareto's law in action with the top elites controlling the populace. I also think this is a crucial part of the media industry where we will finally see the end of traditional platforms such as television and print. It's been in decline for a long time but has never been finally stopped, so it would be interesting to see how society changes to accommodate the fact that we are so technologically reliant.

03/05/17 - Social media firms must face heavy fines over extremist content – MPs

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/01/social-media-firms-should-be-fined-for-extremist-content-say-mps-google-youtube-facebook

The article talks about the fact that social media firms will be forced to face heavy fines from governments after a report found that a lot of extremist content is not being removed. In Germany, the report points out that they are considering putting up fines of up to 50 million euros on social media companies that are slow to remove illegal content. Some of the material included antisemitic, hate-crime attacks on MPs that had been the subject of a previous committee report. Material encouraging child abuse and sexual images of children was also not removed, despite being reported on by journalists.

• An inquiry by the Commons home affairs committee condemns technology companies for failing to tackle hate speech
• Social media companies are putting profit before safety and should face fines of tens of millions of pounds for failing to remove extremist and hate crime material promptly from their websites
• The inquiry, launched last year following the murder of the Labour MP Jo Cox by a far-right gunman, concludes that social media multinationals are more concerned with commercial risks than public protection.
• “One of the world’s largest companies has profited from hatred and has allowed itself to be a platform from which extremists have generated revenue.”
• During its investigation, the committee found instances of terror recruitment videos for banned jihadi and neo-Nazi groups remaining accessible online even after MPs had complained about them.

Personally, I think this is the right way to add a certain aspect of gatekeeping back to the internet. Although, I belive in the freedom of the internet, I do believe that there are some content that are down right immoral and unethical which should not be shared as it can be argued that some of that content is shared purely because of the freedom to be able to. However, I do not agree with extremely restrictive monitoring which would prevent the freedom of the internet, yet I do think some level of content monitoring which takes down outright unethical and extremist content. I also believe that charging companies with heavy heavy fines is exactly what will get their attentions.