Connect with us

Tech

Media Giants vs Australia: Their Latest Move

Published

on

Media Giants vs Australia Their Latest Move scaled

What is Happening?

Facebook and Google – two media giants, have been facing the heat as the Australian Parliament plans to pass a proposed law that would cost both companies a lot of money. 

Facebook is a global social media platform with over 2 billion active users. Founded by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004, it has expanded to become a company valued at an estimated $720 billion. The company owns other popular platforms like WhatsApp and Instagram. 

Google is a popular search engine used worldwide. Founded in 1998, it is currently headed by Sundar Pichai. Its parent company, Alphabet, is worth $1 trillion. 

The law would require both giants to pay media publishers and journalists for any of their content that is published on the sites.

How Did the Media Giants Respond to the Law?

Despite loudly opposing the law at first, as of February 17, 2021, Google has decided that instead of fighting the Parliament, they would recede to Australia’s conditions. 

News Corp, a Mass Media Company announced that they had come to an agreement with Google, promising to provide “trusted journalism from its news sites around the world in return for significant payments by Google.” The agreement is a three-year-deal that includes publications like The Australian, Sky News, and other titles. 

Facebook, on the other hand, took a more hostile approach: the company has made the decision to block Australian users from sharing, viewing and interacting with news content on the site.

On the Facebook Newsroom, William Easton, Managing Director of Facebook in Australia and New Zealand wrote: “[The proposed law] has left us facing a stark choice: attempt to comply with [the] law… or stop allowing news content on our services in Australia. With a heavy heart, we are choosing the latter.” 

Facebook’s decision has been acknowledged by the Federal Treasurer of Australia, Josh Frydenberg. He tweeted on Wednesday that he and Zuckerberg had a “constructive discussion” and would “continue [their] conversation to try and find a pathway forward.” 

So what does this mean for Australian and International Facebook users?

Of Facebook’s 2 billion users, 13 million are Australian. 39% of those 2 billion users primarily use the site for getting news.

Users in Australia would still be able to use Facebook as they normally would – reacting to posts, uploading their own and commenting on others. The only thing that would change, is that Australian users would no longer be able to view or share any news stories – neither local, nor international – on the platform.

For international users, news is still available as normal, only they would no longer be able to view or share news from Australian sources. 

What about for Australian and International publishers on Facebook?

For publishers based in Australia, they would no longer be permitted to share or circulate any sort of Australian media. All other Facebook services would remain available.

For International publishers, nothing changes. The only difference is that Australian audiences would no longer be able to view or share those posts. 

Why the difference in response from Google and Facebook?

It is important to consider that Facebook and Google are two different companies with different missions. 

Google wishes to create a world of organized news, where the latest, most reliable news is just one click away.

Facebook, on the other hand, is a social media platform with the goal of “giving power to the people”. Their goal is to create a platform where people from around the world can share things with one another – not providing top media sources. 

Big Tech

Facebook’s move to block news in Australia comes at a time where Big Tech (companies like Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google etc.) are coming under public scrutiny – for political concerns, privacy concerns and/or concerns related to freedom of speech. 

Big Tech has the ability to manipulate the masses – by choosing who is silenced and who is encouraged to speak. 

We should be asking ourselves: do these Big Tech companies have too much power? Facebook was able to bend a proposed law to make it fit – they’re able to avoid having to pay media publishers in Australia by removing the news feature on Facebook.

This isn’t the first time Facebook has been implicated in this type of situation. In fact, Zuckerberg and other Big Tech CEOs regularly appear before Congress in the United States – testifying on incidents related to their companies. 

In 2018, Facebook had multiple scandals, including allegations from the United Nations that the platform had a hand in spreading fake news that targeted the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. 

But this incident is slightly different. Where these Big Tech companies almost always walk away unscathed, Facebook might actually feel the burn of the fire this time. 

Canada has already come forward and pledged to be the next country to make Facebook pay for news. They have promised not to back down in any case. We can expect that more countries will follow suit.

This begs us to ask the question that if in the future, different countries decide to make Facebook pay for different content, would the platform control what we can and can’t see in order to avoid a bill? 

Holding these Tech Giants accountable starting now will ensure that we won’t have to see them start to take control of how we communicate in the future. 

Laws like the one Australia is hoping to introduce would keep these Tech Giants in check, while rewarding local journalists for their hard work. It would really give power to the people, whereas right now the power is in the hands of corporations.

As Australia looks to pass the proposed “Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021” sometime this week or next, the world will continue to watch and see whether Facebook gives in to the government, or stays rooted in its spot.

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

+ posts

I am a student from Ontario, Canada, and an aspiring journalist. I enjoy reading, writing and learning about the world around us - the issues with it and how we can make it a better place.

Daily Brief

SumOfUs’s Researcher’s Avatar Sexually Assaulted in Horizon World’s Game

Published

on

Brelyon metaverse desk scaled
  • In Meta’s virtual reality platform, Horizon Worlds, the avatar of a 21-year old SumOfUs researcher was sexually assaulted. 
  • Meta confirms that it has set up safety tools in Horizon Worlds in order to prevent negative experiences, especially since there were earlier reports of virtual assaults and inappropriate behavior in February. 
  • One of the safeguards introduced was Personal Boundary, which prevents any avatars from coming within a set distance of 4 feet of each other in order to respect the avatar’s personal space. The company also offers other ways in order to block and report users as well.
  • Nevertheless, SumOfUS reported that the researcher was “encouraged” to disable the Personal Boundary feature, and was approached by 2 male avatars in a room, one of whom was observing and the other got fairly close to her. She also witnessed lewd comments, homophobic slurs, and virtual gun violence. 
  • SumOfUs has filed a resolution with some of the shareholders, requesting a risk assessment of the human rights impacts in the metaverse. A shareholder meeting is set to be held on Wednesday. 
  • SumOfUs’s campaigns director Vicky Wyatt stated, “Let’s not repeat and replicate [real-world issues] in the metaverse. We need a better plan here on how to mitigate online harms in the metaverse”.

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Politics

Digital Authoritarianism – A Growing Challenge to The World Press Freedom

Published

on

Digital authoritarianism – a growing challenge to the world press freedom

Press and electronic media have been an active source of propagation of the discourse be it political, social, or religious. They make it easier for a piece of information to reach the common masses and thus it is crucial for the governments to control them to keep insuring the creation of “us” and “them” division in the society.  But this control has become a challenge for a free and independent press. Digital authoritarianism, cyber surveillance, and monitoring of political and social activities of people through media have made it difficult for the people of the present age and time to have freely expressed their opinion and easier for the governments to control the information.

While China has been controlling the influx of information and the regulation of ideologies in the country through a great fire, Other countries are joining in too with their measure to increase cyber-surveillance. Internet shutdowns are one of the tools for asserting digital authoritarianism and according to a survey conducted by a non-profit digital rights organization Access now, the year 2021 experienced 182 events of Internet shutdowns around the world.

The shutdowns measures were taken to contribute to the growing political tensions in the respective regions for example, during the coup in Maynmar, and to influence the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, specifically Russia. Similarly, while Africa experienced an epidemic of coups in the year 2021, the number of internet shutdowns reached 19.

 India which claims to be the “world’s largest democracy” imposed an internet shutdown more than a hundred times in the year 2021 and more than half of them were on the already repressed people of Jammu and Kashmir.

While Russia became the only country in Europe to impose an internet shutdown in 2021, in the year 2022, the Russia and Ukraine war has forced other EU countries to ban the access to Russia Today, Sputnik other information sites regulated by Russia calling it a measure against “the war propaganda.” Similarly, since the beginning of the conflict, Russia has imposed new internet laws in the country to monitor the spread of news restricting the use of global applications like Instagram and Facebook.  

The more recent rerouting of the internet traffic of occupied Ukrainian regions to be redirected through Russian cyber routes. Netblocks, an internet observatory, noted that: “Connectivity on the network has been routed via Russia’s internet instead of Ukrainian telecoms infrastructure and is hence likely now subject to Russian internet regulations, surveillance, and censorship.”

However, while countries around the world are being exposed to exerting digital dominance, and being accused to collect user data for their own benefit, it is becoming a challenge for them to create “democracy-affirming technologies” to combat the digital authoritarianism that has been challenging the world’s press freedom around the world.

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Society

Sexualized Child Images “Meet Community Guidelines” on Instagram

Published

on

Instagram Face

Instagram has come under a lot of heat, and rightly so, for not removing accounts that showed pictures of children in swimwear or partial clothing attracting loads of sexualized comments even after such accounts were reported via the in-app reporting tool. 

The above-mentioned tool allows users to flag accounts that have suspicious activity which is then reviewed by the system’s automated moderation technology, which in this case ruled such concerning accounts as “acceptable” and conforming to “community guidelines” resulting in such accounts remaining live.

An independent researcher challenged this and reported one such concerning account to Instagram using the in-app reporting tool, only to be met with a response tagged with a phrase many of us a too familiar with i.e., “due to the high volume of reports” submitted it can not view the report but the “(automated) technology has found that this account probably doesn’t go against our community guidelines”. The said account, with more than 33,000 followers remained live the whole day.

All this while Instagram’s parent company, Meta, as do other social media companies claims an approach that has zero tolerance towards child exploitation – claims that remain unsubstantiated by their actions/policies.

Instagram is not alone in failing to effectively handle this issue. Twitter has many similar accounts often known as “tribute pages”. This is evident from the example of this one account which was ruled not to be breaking twitter’s rules after being reported through the in-app reporting tool despite posting pictures of a man performing sexual acts with images of a 14-year-old TikTok underage influencer. Other tweets from the same account reading “looking to trade some younger stuff” were also seemingly not concerning enough, until it was publicly called out by a campaign group ‘Collective Shout’ at which point the account was taken down.

Should such accounts suspicious of illegal activity and clearly harmful be allowed to remain live only because they do not meet a criminal threshold, yet?

Are “Zero tolerance” claims consistent with companies allowing the content that is a threat to children to remain live despite being reported, let alone proactively moderate content?

Should the social media companies be relying on automated detections for preventing the serious risk of sexualization, harassment and exploitation of our children when such technologies have been known to have failed miserably for even keeping up with simple hate speech?

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Health

Tired of Carrying a Wallet? Have Your Credit Card Microchipped Under Your Skin

Published

on

Dr Mark Gasson has an RFID microchip implanted in his left hand by a surgeon March 16 2009 1 scaled

Walletmor, a British-Polish startup, claims to have created the first implantable microchip that can be used at any contactless payment machine around the world. Walletmor has sold over 500 microchips that are slightly bigger than a grain of rice and weigh less than one gram. Each microchip goes for £199 and can be sewn in by professionals at any aesthetics clinic. 

Walletmor claims that the microchip is entirely safe and has received regulatory approval. Once implanted, the microchip is ready to use and will not shift from its place. The microchip requires no batteries or an external power source to function. The implantable capsule is made of biocompatible material and consists of a microprocessor for storing encrypted payment data and a proximity antenna to connect to nearby payment terminals. 

The founder of Walletmor, Wojciech Paprota claims that the microchips are impossible to hack stating, “our payment implant cannot be forgotten or lost. This means that, unlike a standard payment card, it cannot end up in the wrong hands. It will not fall out of our wallet, and no one will take it from there. The implant cannot be scanned, photographed or hacked.” 

At the moment, the microchip connects to a mobile app called ICard, where a user can refill funds for contactless payments. 

Paprota believes that credit card implants will one day be as popular as regular payment cards and that Walletmor’s long-term goal is to provide more functionalities to their chip such as identification and key card access capabilities. 

But before microchip implants can be widely accepted, Paprota and other emerging microchip-based companies must first assure citizens of their safety. Though implanted microchips are convenient for day-to-day tasks, many fear that as technology continues to advance, a person’s data and specific location can potentially be hacked causing safety concerns. 

Nada Kakabadse, a Professor of Ethics at Reading University questioned the ethics behind getting microchips implanted. Kakabadse stated, “there is a dark side to the technology that has a potential for abuse…to those with no love of individual freedom, it opens up seductive new vistas for control, manipulation and oppression.. And who owns the data? Who has access to the data? And, is it ethical to chip people like we do pets?”

So the question arises, how much are we willing to risk for the sake of convenience?

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

+ posts

Born and raised in the Bay Area, California, Faiza is a mother of two with a degree in Psychology and Paralegal Studies. She is passionate about lending her voice to those who are disadvantaged.

Continue Reading

Tech

Elon Musk is now the largest shareholder in Twitter

Published

on

Screenshot 2022 04 05 at 23.09.00
Heisenberg Media via Wikimedia Commons

Tesla founder Elon Musk has become the largest shareholder in Twitter. His shares are four times greater than that of Twitter founder Jack Dorsey.

Elon Musk has purchased 9.2% shares equating 73.5 million shares in the social network. His shares are a passive stake but news that he has become the largest shareholder in the company caused a surge in Twitter share price. His stake is now worth more than $3bn.

Parag Agrawal, CEO of Twitter, tweeted on Tuesday “I’m excited to share that we’re appointing @elonmusk to our board! Through conversations with Elon in recent weeks, it became clear to us that he would bring great value to our Board.”

Elon is running a poll on twitter about the edit button, which will be helpful for twitter users to edit mistakes but some, including Jack Dorsey, have rejected the idea because people can change the meaning of what they have said, after they have shared it. 

Dan Ives, from analyst firm Wedbush said that Elon will soon go for an active role in company management. 

He said, “We would expect this passive stake as just the start of broader conversations with the Twitter board/management that could ultimately lead to an active stake and a potential more aggressive ownership role of Twitter,”.

This is supported by the reports of the Wall Street Journal that his application to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which should have a line saying he doesn’t intend to influence the company, had a ‘Not Applicable’ mark.

There is an issue reported about his investment in twitter. He filed his investment on 14th of March and after filing and before it became public knowledge, he asked users whether they believed that free speech was essential to a functioning democracy and whether Twitter adheres to this principle.

Cornell University’s assistant professor Alexandra Cirone considers this as an evidence he may “try to influence Twitter practices” and have a “more active play in the social media eco-system”.

On the other hand, Howard Fischer, partner at law firm Moses & Singer, said that considering he had bought the share already, “I do suspect the SEC is going to look long and hard into whether they can bring manipulation charges”. 

Elon Musk is a regular user of twitter, whether he uses his influence to establish free speech or market manipulation, twitter users will find out soon. 

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Society

Is Technology Making Children Grow Up Faster?

Published

on

Technology
  • Research has found that children’s exposure to technology may allow for them to be more intellectually savvy at a younger age, however it is seen to also push ‘maturity’ milestones to an older age.
  • Despite this supposed maturity, the younger generations seem to delay many adult milestones such as dating, drinking, engaging in intimate relations, and driving unlike previous generations.
  • With all things kept in mind, studies find that children are not growing up faster in terms of society, culture, or biology. 

Research has found that children’s exposure to technology may allow for them to be more intellectually savvy at a younger age, however it is seen to also push ‘maturity’ milestones to an older age. The advent of smartphones, tablets, and other such electronics has put the world’s knowledge into the palms of children at a younger age than ever seen before. With most parents buying their child a smartphone at age 10, it is no question that the newer generation has practically unlimited access to news, social media, games, and the like.

Marketing geared towards kids is not new and the concept of “kids getting older younger” (KGOY) is one used by companies constantly to raise revenues. Games such as Roblox have capitalized on such ideas and the effects are clear. Speaking to strangers and having open access to the internet is pulling children towards emotional maturity. 

Despite this supposed maturity, the younger generation seems to delay in many adult milestones such as dating, drinking, engaging in intimate relations, and driving, unlike previous generations. any experts argue that this view is skewed, including senior Vice President and Director of the Center for Children and Technology, Shelley Pasnik. Pasnik stated “The basic stages of children’s development aren’t changing…what has changed is [kids’] exposure to information.” 

Experts in sociology also warn that technology alone is not shaping children and their maturity. Confounding variables found in much more intensive parenting styles will also reflect on the youth. With all things kept in mind studies find that children are not growing up faster in terms of society, culture, or biology. Rather a view of what constitutes a ‘grown-up’ may be skewed in society. 

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Recent Comments

Articles