Global Media News

Facebook Feed: Facebook Bans UK Alt-Right Groups

Listen to Facebook Feed with Brandon Ellis

Facebook has banned British alt-right activist groups including the English Defense League, Britain First, and the British National Party. This ban includes, “posts and other content that “expresses praise or support” for these radical groups, according to the Guardian.

Facebook justified their actions stating, “Individuals and organisations who spread hate, or attack or call for the exclusion of others on the basis of who they are, have no place on Facebook.”

Should the controversial British National Party have the right to express their views? Facebook doesn't think so: “The individuals and organisations we have banned today violate this policy, and they will no longer be allowed a presence on Facebook or Instagram.”

Why is Facebook cracking down on hate speech now? Facebook is concerned about an impending government crackdown on social media. Their firm stance began back in February with the banning of far-right activist, Tommy Robinson. CNN reported that  “he posted anti-Muslim content and engaged in activity offline supporting hate figures and groups.”  

What is Facebook doing to track and control hate speech on their platform? This is getting  a lot of attention in the UK. The Independent reports that the government is proposing that social media platforms such as Facebook “will be legally required to protect their users" by introducing a regulator. This proposal hearkens back to England’s toughness on censorship and Facebook’s readiness to comply when faced with the threat of government regulation.

What constitutes hate speech in the eyes of Facebook? On their official Community Standards page, Facebook explains:

“We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability.”

The English Defense League is known to be Islamophobic, whereas  Britain First and the British National Party are fascist groups associated with white supremacy. As certain groups are demonized in these organizations, hateful rhetoric leads to impassioned acts of violence and terror. By the very nature of these groups, they go against Facebook’s policies.

Many are happy with Facebook’s decision while others are appalled. Far-right group, Knights Templar International, “said it was “horrified” by the ban, and that it was exploring legal options” according to the Guardian.  As the battle against hate wins out, the battle for free speech is slowly losing its footing. Facebook’s power to eliminate hate across its platform is noble in rhetoric, but how much power is too much power?

Facebook Feed: Why is New Zealand's Privacy Commissioner Slamming Facebook?

Listen to Facebook Feed with Brandon Ellis

Weeks after the horrific mosque massacre in New Zealand, the story continues to strike an emotional chord.  Privacy commissioner, John Edwards, called Facebook ‘morally bankrupt liars’ in a recent tweet. Edwards’ rather impassioned remarks come after Facebook streamed the cold blooded killing of 50 people at a New Zealand mosque according to CNN.

In a report from The Guardian, Edwards went onto say of Facebook:

“They are morally bankrupt pathological liars who enable genocide (Myanmar), facilitate foreign undermining of democratic institutions...allow the live streaming of suicides, rapes, and murders, continue to host and publish the mosque attack video, allow advertisers to target ‘Jew haters’ and other hateful market segments, and refuse to accept any responsibility for any content or harm.”

The Facebook video showcasing the massacre went viral across numerous platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. Controversy and chaos has arisen with YouTube celebrity, Pewdiepie being unjustly connected to the attack and a wide array of tributes circulating throughout the web; all incidents confirmed by The Verge. Amidst the storm of social media madness, Edwards has since deleted his tweets saying that they attracted "toxic and misinformed traffic," according to The Guardian. 

Why would Facebook be the target for such hate? From an NPR report by Matthew S. Schwartz, a vice president from the company claimed that, “fewer than 200 people saw the Christchurch massacre while it was being streamed live on the site.” It was however later confirmed that the view count was much closer to 4,000.

Privacy commissioner Edwards explained that Facebook, “is a technology which is capable of causing great harm,” during an RNZ interview. Disgusted by just how public the massacre was, Edwards openly called for change on the platform. Facebook CEO,  The Guardian, quotes Mark Zuckerberg rebutting Edwards claims saying that the shootings, “were the result of “bad actors”; not bad technology and a time delay would disrupt the enjoyment of users who broadcast events like birthday parties or group hangouts.”

How did Facebook respond to the shootings in the first place? It would seem that their statements fell more closely in line to Edwards’ views than Zuckerberg’s. According to BBC News, a letter from Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg read the following:

“Many of you have also rightly questioned how online platforms such as Facebook were used to circulate horrific videos of the attack... We have heard feedback that we must do more - and we agree.”

After paying respects to the victims and their loved ones, Sandberg stated, “we are exploring restrictions on who can go Live depending on factors such as prior Community Standard violations." So while Zuckerberg himself may not be in favor of changing Facebook, the company itself is doing its best to find a proper middle ground. Regardless of what Facebook did or did not say, Edwards remains far from pleased.

If Edwards is not using Facebook and its valuable live streaming services, how will he communicate with the New Zealand public? The Guardian suggests that his office is, “considering what other platforms it could use to broadcast the prime minister’s video messages, including a separate, dedicated website,” instead of sticking with Facebook.

The world of Facebook continues to rupture from its near-endless stream of controversy. One thing is for certain however: the company needs to get its act together in order to win back New Zealand’s support.

Facebook Feed: Does Facebook Know Your Password?

LISTEN TO FACEBOOK FEED WITH BRANDON ELLIS

A Facebook blog post confirmed the site had access to millions of users’ passwords, causing controversy across the web. The news was first brought to the surface by online security journalist, Brian Krebs. In his report he claimed that "between 200 million and 600 million Facebook users" were affected; later clarifying that people at risk, “ had their account passwords stored in plain text and searchable by thousands of Facebook employees — in some cases going back to 2012.”  Because Facebook left users' password data unencrypted, the actual text itself could have been searchable to what Krebs confirms as "more than 20,000 Facebook employees." Encrypted text is coded and hidden to the general public. Millions of these passwords were visible in plain tweet to thousands at Facebook. This incident is not only far-reaching, but it has occurred for years.

It’s one thing for a reporter to tackle this issue, but what did Facebook have to say about these allegations? A blog post written March 21st from Facebook themselves validates everything Krebs pointed out. In the post, VP of Engineering, Security, and Privacy, Pedro Canahuati had this to say:

“As part of a routine security review in January, we found that some user passwords were being stored in a readable format within our internal data storage systems. This caught our attention because our login systems are designed to mask passwords using techniques that make them unreadable. We have fixed these issues and as a precaution we will be notifying everyone whose passwords we have found were stored in this way.”

The post later went on to advise users how to secure/change their passwords. Should people feel threatened about their online security? Many publications believe so, with Fortune as a notable example giving a detailed list on how to change a Facebook password, in response to the news. From an interview that Krebs did with software engineer, Scott Renfro, the Facebook employee claimed that the site had “not found any cases so far in our investigations where someone was looking intentionally for passwords, nor have we found signs of misuse of this data.”

While numerous sources from Facebook have commented on this event, an article from CNBC points out, “Facebook's blog post did not say how many users were affected.” In the same article, they reported Facebook’s shares dropping less than 1 percent on the day of the incident. Since the issue was reported, Facebook stocks have once again risen. It is uncertain if the recent Facebook drama will cause any permanent damage for the social media site.

Will this break users’ trust of Facebook or will it be another scandal pushed under the rug? A breach in trust of this caliber can very well shake the foundation of this online titan.

 

Facebook Feed: Messenger Splits Your Professional and Personal Lives

 

Listen to Facebook Feed with Brandon Ellis!

Facebook’s Business Manager is a valuable tool connecting businesses with clients quickly and efficiently.  The benefits of Business Manager are clear, but it can alienate average users with just how separate it is from the rest of Facebook. Recently, Facebook explored a way to solve this issue by conducting a test which adds a shortcut on its Messenger app directly to your business messages.

According to Matt Southern of Search Engine Journal, this test was limited and only “a minimal number of Messenger users” had access to it.  In an official statement in a developer community Facebook posted:

"we want to ensure that we are delivering a delightful experience for the Messenger community while delivering business results for advertisers. We are testing this with a minimal number of Messenger users and do not have plans to expand the test at this time."

Just how business friendly has Facebook been? It turns out that the site is no stranger to the business world. According to Forbes in 2015, Facebook was making “strides in its effort to attract small and medium sized businesses” reaching “more than 50 million” businesses in that year alone.  Facebook is guiding their user’s business in the right direction by promoting access to their pages with an  increased emphasis of social media, The social media platform’s official business site boasts that it gives users the ability to, “create separate ad accounts for every client or business.”  Messenger is on the rise and could be a powerful tool for businesses looking to adapt to the digital age.

Why did Facebook feel the need to improve the navigation process? Business Manager is too complex  according to multiple frustrated blog posts. The pros and cons of Facebook Business Manager are explained by  SocialNicole, "it can be a complicated process to learn how to use it fully." 

What's wrong with Business Manager? Business messages are received efficiently, but there's a catch. An owner will receive business specific messages, so long as they are registered under that organization’s account.  However, just like any ordinary person, a business person more than likely  logged into a personal account. Hypothetically, if they were under their personal account, they would need to exit it in order to get to professional matters. This in turn, complicates a seemingly convenient form of navigation.

So how is Facebook improving the situation? The new test eliminates the problem by separating business and personal messages into separate folders.  The folder is indicated by the word “business” and displays when the last business notification was received. So not only is the complexity of Business Manager removed but users can go through their social and business messages in mere seconds.

With this test, navigating your business messages is easier than ever. Assuming that this test proves successful, users can go from contacting a friend to a client in the matter of a click. Will this remain a dream or will businesses wake up to a world where this is a reality? That depends on the feedback businesses give Facebook.

Facebook: The New Cause of Political Divisiveness

Politics has always been a dirty business. On both sides of the political aisle, morality has been blurred to gain the upper hand. Defamation, slander and attack politics have been around since the inception of government. However, social media has taken these dirty tactics to a new level.

Facebook, the leader of all social media (2.32 billion monthly users as of December 31, 2018), has crossed the line of morality from time to time. Recently, it has been criticized for allowing third parties to politically sway its users during election time. Politicians hire outside parties to infiltrate Facebook and other social media platforms while they release negative political ads and share "fake news" against each other.

In 2016 Cambridge Analytica, a political data firm, was hired by President Trump's election campaign and gained access to private information on more than 50 million Facebook users. The information gathered gained specific personality traits from the users to help influence their behavior. By extracting this information, the Trump campaign was able to (cheaply) buy ad space and gaining an advantage by using specific words and tools to gain users' trust. Facebook, though claiming they never knew about the specifics of the content being extracted, was negligent during this ordeal. 

Now, Facebook now is implementing political ad safeguards to try and stop these attack ads from spreading during every election cycle. This step by Facebook shows that the company, at the very least, is aware of their malfeasance and are doing everything they can to gain their users' trust once again. However, Facebook is no longer just a social media tool. It's become one of the most profitable companies in the world. In the cut-throat world of business, morality will continue to be blurred, and expect Facebook to continue to listen not to its users, but to the highest bidder. 

Social Media-Free September in UK

The Royal Public Health Society of the United Kingdom is supporting a national boycott or cut back of social media during the month of September.

This new social movement is targeting the users of social media applications: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat. The campaign known as Scroll Free September is targeting social media addicts that continuously use social media.

The National Health Service of England has supported the campaign due to the rise in young people’s mental health issues. The Royal Public Health Society sights statistics to support their new movement. According to the RSPH, “Half of users aged 18-34 think going “cold turkey” for a month would have a positive effect on their sleep and real-world relationships and almost half (47%) thought it would be beneficial to their overall mental health.”

 According to rsph.org.uk , the campaign includes five alternatives to choose from for the month of September:

• Cold Turkey is giving up all social media.
• Social Butterfly is giving up social media during social events, which includes parties.
• Night Owl is giving up social media every night after 6:00 PM.
• Busy Bee is giving up social media in school or work.
• Sleeping Dog is giving up social media at bedtime.

All of these  alternatives will give people a chance to reconnect with people and their daily lives.

A BBC reporter interviewed UK teenagers and adults that admit to using social media constantly. 15-year-old Rianna feels that she has to keep up with social media discussions. She suffers from phone addiction, which affects younger people as well as adults. Her 14-year-old friend Emma makes a statement about her generation. She states, “I think I do use it too much, but it’s a habit. It’s definitely distracting”.

British comedian 42-year-old Russell Kane admits that he is in counseling for Internet addiction. His response is, “I’ll throw something out there. I’ve had six counseling sessions for internet addiction… because it’s affecting my life.” These responses show how Internet and social media addiction is interfering with the lives of people of all ages.

According to BBC’s follow up article, an estimate of 300,000 people are participating in the campaign as of the first week of September. While the response has been positive, there has been some criticism. BBC reports that young people with disabilities use social media to connect with people and need to participate on a regular basis. Sky News expressed a similar concern for senior citizens. Social media helps seniors stay mentally alert and feel part of the community.      

As a constant social media user, I believe that this social media cutback movement is very important. This social movement is a wake-up call to social media users who connect to social media on a constant basis. Users need to be aware of their life surroundings and interactions with other people. This campaign has motivated me to cutback on my social media usage, especially on my smart phone.

Can tech provide a solution to help limit social media screen time? One new app that promises to help is Apple’s new feature called Screen Time which allows users to monitor their time usage and set their own limits regarding social media. This is a great tool for social media users because they can be aware of how long they use these applications on a daily basis.

I support The Royal Public Health Society of the UK for their social movement that identifies social media and smart phone addiction. They are putting a stop to this growing addiction and making it clear with September’s Boycott that people need to put their phones down and escape their distractions.

The Kremlin Uses Facebook Events Tool to Organize Anti-Immigration Rallies in the Western United States

    Russia is well known for its strong governmental regulations on media. Russian journalists risk their lives in attempting to expose any kind of corruption in sensitive topics including the nation's political dynamics. Russian media is constantly criticized by other countries with less regulated media systems. It is challenging to find any Russian media sources criticizing their own country because, "laws allow the authorities to block websites without explanation, require popular bloggers to register with the mass media regulator Roskomnadzor and demand that internet companies give the authorities access to users' information." Common punishment for not abiding by these rules is prison time. Recent attempts to shift political attitudes have shown the governments desire to not only persuade their own peoples perspectives, but that of other nations around the globe.

    The Kremlin, headed by Vladimir Putin, has recently attempted more fake news stories in efforts to persuade American political opinion. The Daily Beast discovered that the 2016 Facebook event "Citizens before refugees" (pictured on the left) was hosted by "SecuredBorders," a Russian backed U.S. anti-immigration community. The page followed by 133,000 members was soon taken down by the social media platform. Following the three hour long event planned to be hosted at the City Council Chambers, Breitbart, a far-right news network, posted a great number of stories bashing the refugee population of Twin Falls including “Twin Falls Rape Special Report: Why Are the Refugees Moving In?” This was a false story denied by Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs. Other Russian influenced pro-Trump outlets such as InfoWars and WorldNetDaily also published stories calling for action to change the areas legislation to deny refugee citizens.

    Earlier this week, it was revealed by Facebook that Russia used fake identities and thousands of ads, seen by 23-70 million people, in attempt to shape U.S. political views before and after the 2016 election. This is an example of how Russian lawmakers used social media to interfere in the political discourse of other countries. However, the government controlled Russian news media outlet Sputnik, “Russia has repeatedly denied accusations that it interfered in the vote.” 

    Several different U.S. media outlets detailed the January 2017 FBI intelligence report claiming that “Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.” Russian news outlets Sputnik and RT are under fire for serving as a "platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences." Both of these outlets operate on U.S. soil and could have some interference shown in the above Facebook events. This report also touches on the idea that new regulations need to be put in place for media propaganda used by Russia on other nations.

Digital Giants in the UK; Will Google and Facebook Have to Pay for Public Service Reporting?

 

As digital giants like Facebook and Google continue to serve as main sources for news in the media, many argue that they are “bleeding the newspaper industry dry by sucking up advertising revenue”, as stated in The Guardian. In Britain a digital economy bill is currently being drafted that will persuade legislators to have these giant corporations pay for their advertising.

In the proposal “a 1% levy will be considered for companies like Facebook and Google to pay for independent and non- profit journalism.” Throughout the UK these establishments are paying minimal tax while lacking diversity with the information provided.

Des Freedman, a professor of media and communications stresses that “the time for policymakers to address the emergent gaps in the supply of diverse media and to secure the trusted and independent news system that our democracy so desperately needs.”

In an earlier article, The Guardian addressed the dynamics of Facebook and Google within the UK. “The two companies’ hold on the UK digital display market is almost equally as strong as their hold on the total digital ad market,” said eMarketer. “Facebook will continue to grab the lion’s share of UK digital display spends over the next few years.”

DigitalNewsReport.org, The Reuters Institute Digital News Report, explains that throughout the UK, some of most “effective ways of delivering public service news via third-party platforms including search engines, social media, video-hosting sites, and messaging apps.”

They also reported that online news users consume, share or discuss news via Facebook. Only in the UK do significantly more people use public service media for news online than use social media for news. Due to this, it serves as a reason why Britain is trying to arrange the digital economy bill which “addresses a range of policy issues related to the electronic communications infrastructure and services, including copyright infringement, restrictions on access to online pornography and Ofcom’s relationship with the BBC.”

India Victory on Freedom of Speech Online

 

India's Supreme Court has scrapped away their Section66A law stating that any offensive comments online would lead to arrests made.  The fact that this was even a law at one point shows how censored the Indian government can be with their rules against the media and freedom of speech and press. In the Hindustan Times they reported, 

“We hold the section unconstitutional on the grounds that it takes within its sweep protected speech that is innocent in nature. It is liable to have a chilling effect on free speech and, therefore, has to be struck down,” the court said."

The law was said to hold the power to send someone to jail for up to three years for something as simple as a social media message or email that would be considered annoying or inappropriate.  According to BBC News,

"The law was first challenged by a law student after two young women were arrested in November 2012 in Mumbai for comments on Facebook following the death of politician Bal Thackeray.

Shaheen Dhada was held for criticising Mumbai's shutdown after Thackeray's death. Renu Srinivasan, who "liked" the comment, was also arrested. The two were later released on bail."

Since than the law had caused several other arrested through out the years.  It was a ray of victory for India on Tuesday, March 24th, when the Indian government trashed the Section66A law in the name of freedom of speech for the people.  Hope was restored for meaning behind the word freedom in India.

Kenyan rapper calls for others to "Keep it Real"

An article from Nigerian Entertainment Today features Kenyan rapper Mwafeeka Mwaf taking to social media to express his discontent with the lyrics of another well known African rapper, Ice Prince. In a song titled 'N Word', Ice makes it a point to rap about his lavish lifestyle which includes driving Bugatti cars.

Mwaf's post on Facebook instructed Ice to stop copying the styles and themes of Western rappers like Jay Z and Lil Wayne, who due to their success and fame  can actually afford Buggatis. The reason for Mwaf's anger being that Hip Hop should be a means of expressing oneself through song, not who one would like to be. He believes Ice Prince's lyrics do not accurately represent Africans. 

Western consumers of Hip Hop are now more used to the mainstream commercialized brand of the genre which depicts rappers as having wealth and fame. The origins of Hip Hop seem to be quite the opposite, using beats and rhyme to illustrate financial and socioeconomic strife. According to Mwaf, these roots of Hip Hop should maintain the same cultural integrity in Africa's musical entertainment industry.