Mediaboss Marketing

We are living through an information revolution. The traditional gatekeepers of knowledge librarians, journalists and government officials have largely been replaced by technological gatekeepers search engines, artificial intelligence chatbots and social media feeds.

Whatever their flaws, the old gatekeepers were, at least on paper, beholden to the public. The new gatekeepers are fundamentally beholden only to profit and to their shareholders.

That is about to change, thanks to a bold experiment by the European Union.

With key provisions going into effect on Aug. 25, an ambitious package of E.U. rules, the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, is the most extensive effort toward checking the power of Big Tech (beyond the outright bans in places like China and India). For the first time, tech platforms will have to be responsive to the public in myriad ways, including giving users the right to appeal when their content is removed, providing a choice of algorithms and banning the microtargeting of children and of adults based upon sensitive data such as religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation. The reforms also require large tech platforms to audit their algorithms to determine how they affect democracy, human rights and the physical and mental health of minors and other users.

This will be the first time that companies will be required to identify and address the harms that their platforms enable. To hold them accountable, the law also requires large tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter to provide researchers with access to real-time data from their platforms. But there is a crucial element that has yet to be decided by the European Union: whether journalists will get access to any of that data.

Journalists have traditionally been at the front lines of enforcement, pointing out harms that researchers can expand on and regulators can act upon. The Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which we learned how consultants for Donald Trumps presidential campaign exploited the Facebook data of millions of users without their permission, was revealed by The New York Times and The Observer of London. BuzzFeed News reported on the offensive posts that detailed Facebooks role in enabling the massacre of Rohingyas. My team when I worked at ProPublica uncovered how Facebook allows advertisers to discriminate in employment and housing ads.

But getting data from platforms is becoming harder and harder. Facebook has been particularly aggressive, shutting down the accounts of researchers at New York University in 2021 for unauthorized means of accessing Facebook ads. That year, it also legally threatened a European research group, AlgorithmWatch, forcing it to shut down its Instagram monitoring project. And earlier this month, Twitter began limiting all its users ability to view tweets in what the company described as an attempt to block automated collection of information from Twitters website by A.I. chatbots as well as bots, spammers and other bad actors.

Meanwhile, the tech companies have also been shutting down authorized access to their platforms. In 2021, Facebook disbanded the team that oversaw the analytics tool CrowdTangle, which many researchers used to analyze trends. This year, Twitter replaced its free researcher tools with a paid version that is prohibitively expensive and unreliable. As a result, the public has less visibility than ever into how our global information gatekeepers are behaving.

Last month, the U.S. senator Chris Coons introduced the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act, legislation that would require social media companies to share more data with researchers and provide immunity to journalists collecting data in the public interest with reasonable privacy protections.

But as it stands, the European Unions transparency efforts rest on European academics who will apply to a regulatory body for access to data from the platforms and then, hopefully, issue research reports.

That is not enough. To truly hold the platforms accountable, we must support the journalists who are on the front lines of chronicling how despots, trolls, spies, marketers and hate mobs are weaponizing tech platforms or being enabled by them.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa runs Rappler, a news outlet in the Philippines that has been at the forefront of analyzing how Filipino leaders have used social media to spread disinformation, hijack social media hashtags, manipulate public opinion and attack independent journalism.

Last year, for instance, Rappler revealed that the majority of Twitter accounts using certain hashtags in support of Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who was then a presidential candidate, had been created in a one-month period, making it likely that many of them were fake accounts. With the Twitter research feed that Rappler used now shuttered, and the platforms cracking down on data access, its not clear how Ms. Ressa and her colleagues can keep doing this type of important accountability journalism.

Ms. Ressa asked the European Commission, in public comments filed in May, to provide journalists with access to real-time data so they can provide a macro view of patterns and trends that these technology companies create and the real-world harms they enable. (I also filed comments to the European Commission, along with more than a dozen journalists, asking the commission to support access to platform data for journalists.)

As Daphne Keller, the director of the program on platform regulation at Stanfords Cyber Policy Center, argues in her comments to the European Union, allowing journalists and researchers to use automated tools to collect publicly available data from platforms is one of the best ways to ensure transparency because it is a rare form of transparency that does not depend on the very platforms who are being studied to generate information or act as gatekeepers.

Of course, the tech platforms often push back against transparency requests by claiming that they must protect the privacy of their users. Which is hilarious, given that their business models are based on mining and monetizing their users personal data. But putting that aside, the privacy interests of users are not being implicated here: The data that journalists need is already public for anyone who has an account on these services.

What journalists lack is access to large quantities of public data from tech platforms in order to understand whether an event is an anomaly or representative of a larger trend. Without that access, we will continue to have what we have now: a lot of anecdotes about this piece of content or that user being banned, but no real sense of whether these stories are statistically significant.

Journalists write the first draft of history. If we cant see what is happening on the biggest speech platforms in the globe, that history will be written for the benefit of platforms not the public.

Here is the original post:
Opinion | Give Journalists What They Need To Hold Big Tech ... - The New York Times

WHO/Europe and the European Commission have joined forces to support countries in the European Union working to improve long-term care. The new partnership, which will inform WHO/Europes work in the European Region, will focus on improving access and quality of long-term care services while providing important support to informal caregivers, who often play a crucial role in care provision.

Within the European Region, 135 million people are living with disabilities, and nearly 1 in 3 older people cannot meet their basic needs independently. Access to good-quality, integrated, long-term care is essential for these people to maintain their functional ability, enjoy basic human rights and live with dignity.

Integrated delivery of care happens when people can access the care they need in a timely and comprehensive way, with services ranging from prevention, treatment, long-term care to rehabilitative or palliative care. These can be provided in health and long-term care facilities, in their homes or in the community.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities of care systems, including inadequate long-term care services and poor integration with health-care delivery. In the European Union alone, the initial waves of the pandemic resulted in approximately 200000 deaths among residents of long-term care facilities.

The lessons of the pandemic are clear. But are we better prepared now to face a challenge of this scale? What we know is that we need to invest more in our health systems, including in the way we deliver long-term care to those who need it, said Dr Natasha Azzopardi-Muscat, WHO/Europes Director of Country Health Policies and Systems.

Improving access and quality of care across our communities will be key, in addition to supporting caregivers, irrespective of whether they are family members, volunteers or part of the workforce. We are proud of this new partnership with the European Union in this important area of work, and we look forward to leveraging all the tools we have at our disposal to protect peoples health, regardless of where they live, Dr Azzopardi-Muscat added.

"Many long-term care challenges are not just national or European, but global. We are therefore happy to join forces with WHO, building also on their extensive expertise in supporting reforms towards integrated care and adapting health systems to the needs of an ageing population. The strategic partnership with WHO is a step forward towards ensuring access to high-quality affordable long-term care for all, said Ms Katarina Ivankovi Kneevi, Director for Social Rights and Inclusion at the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion of the European Commission.

While access to long-term care services varies across countries within the Region, available data from European Union countries indicate that only 1 in 3 older people with care needs can access care in the community.

As the population ages, the demand for long-term care is expected to rise. By 2024, the WHO European Region will have more older adults (65+ years) than children and adolescents, with an estimated 2 out of every 3 older people requiring care and support at some point in their lives.

The new partnership will develop tools to support countries long-term care reform efforts and help to monitor progress towards improved service coverage, more affordable care and better coordination of health and long-term care services across peoples life-course.

The partnerships activities will align with WHO/Europes upcoming work to support the development of integrated care for healthy ageing, including a regional framework for action on integrated health and care systems to aid coordination, collaboration, joint learning, innovation and monitoring of integrated care delivery and age-friendly communities.

The majority of care in the European Region is provided informally by families and local communities. Through their efforts, informal caregivers help to bridge gaps in service coverage and ensure care for those unable to access or afford formal care services.

The partnership will also support these informal caregivers by developing a set of open-access tools that can help them as they care for others.

The COVID-19 pandemic put enormous pressure on health and care workers and informal caregivers alike. Two out of 3 caregivers in the European Union reported deteriorating mental and physical health due to intensified caregiving responsibilities during the pandemic.

Workforce shortages, as highlighted in WHO/Europes regional report Health and care workforce in Europe: time to act, are also affecting the quality and quantity of long-term care across the Region. Urgent investments are required to address these shortages, focusing on training, recruitment, retention, and protection of the long-term care workforce.

Additionally, around 3 out of 4 informal caregivers are women, and it is estimated that women make up 80% of the formal care workforce. Despite their immense contributions to society, these caregivers often face insufficient recognition, challenging working conditions, excessive care burden, and chronic stress.

"Millions of women providing care for family members today sacrifice work opportunities, leisure time and, far too often, their health, Dr Azzopardi-Muscat explained. That is why investing in fairer care systems is so crucial to promoting gender equality. It is also the smart investment, especially if we are to create well-being economies that put peoples quality of life at the heart of economic recovery.

View original post here:
WHO/Europe and European Commission establish new partnership ... - World Health Organization

Since day one of the invasion, the European Union and its G7 partners have stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine.

We have provided the brave Ukrainian people humanitarian support, substantial financial assistance as well as weapons and training.

Today, we are committing to Ukraine's long-term security and economic prosperity within the Euro-Atlantic community.

The G7 will issue today a declaration to this effect.

The EU will be a key partner in this endeavour.

We will continue to support Ukraine's economic endurance so it can stand up to Russia's aggression

We will continue to impose costs on Russia through sanctions.

We will continue to hold Russia accountable for its war crimes.

And we will continue, through Ukraine's accession path, to support its admirable reform efforts.

Go here to see the original:
Statement by the President of the European Commission on the G7 ... - Language selection

The European Commission has given the State two months to act on what it said was a failure to transpose EU consumer rights protections and disability access rules into national law or face being taken to the European Court of Justice.

In a statement, the EU executive said it had decided to continue two infringement procedures against Ireland and several other member states for failing to comply with their obligations under EU law in the field of consumer protection.

The Government said after the statement was issued however that it had already transposed the consumer rights directive in question and had informally told the commission about this.

Ireland and the other EU states now have two months to address the shortcomings identified by the Commission. In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may decide to refer them to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the commission had said.

The commission sent a formal letter on the matter to Ireland, as well as Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg and Poland.

The 2020 directive concerned requires EU countries to allow designated consumer organisations and public bodies to bring traders to court on behalf of consumers if they use illegal practices.

If consumers have been harmed by an illegal commercial practice, they can seek compensation, replacement, or repair.

A spokesman for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment said on Friday that the Bill transposing the rules had been signed into law by President Higgins on July 11th.

As such, Ireland has met its obligations and transposed the directive. The European Commission was notified of this development, informally, on Wednesday, 12th July, he said. The department will formally notify the commission in the coming days and expects that the infringement proceeding against Ireland will then be closed.

At issue in the second instance of infringement procedures is the European Accessibility Act of 2019, which set out that key products and services such as phones, computers, ebooks, banking services, and electronic communications must be accessible to people with disabilities.

Businesses and services must comply with a set of EU accessibility standards by 2025 under the law.

The commission said in a statement that Ireland had yet to transpose the rules into national law and that it had failed to notify the executive on how this would be done.

It sent formal letters of notice to Ireland as well as Cyprus, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Poland over the issue, giving the countries two months to respond and take the necessary measures or else face being taken to the European Court of Justice.

A Government response on the second directive was sought.

Read this article:
European Commission gives Ireland deadline to act over consumer ... - The Irish Times

A leaked document has revealed that the European Commission is set to recommend a radical rethink of how the EU regulates some genetically engineered crops. This would mean light or no regulation for gene-edited crops with DNA changes that could have occurred in nature.

The commission had previously concluded in 2021 that current EU legislation for new genomic techniques (NGTs) is not fit for purpose. Such techniques could reduce the use of pesticides on crops, allow crops to be better adapted for warmer climates or generate plants more resistant to pests and diseases.

EU regulations currently demand that plants with changes introduced by Crispr gene editing go through an onerous and expensive approval process. This places them on a par with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which can contain genes introduced from entirely different organisms transgenes.

This followed a ruling by the European Court of Justice in July 2018 that gene edited crops are subject to the same 2001 regulations as GMOs. The decision set the EU apart globally and was criticised by many plant scientists for hamstringing crop biotech. Many environmental organisations support the 2018 position, however.

In a leaked document, the commission recommends substantial changes in regulating plants obtained by targeted mutagenesiswhen the changes could be achieved through conventional breeding.

Such plants would be treated similarly to conventional plants and would not require authorisation, risk assessment, traceability and labelling as GMOs, according to the document. A transparency register would be set up for these plants.

The draft also recommends that some leeway be given to gene-edited plants that could contribute to more sustainable agriculture, with labels potentially introduced to inform consumers.

The draft document emphasised that NGTs do not introduce genetic material from a non-crossable species, which is what happens with GMOs, and referenced the conclusion of the European Food Safety Authority that there are no new hazards linked to targeted mutagenesis compared with conventional breeding.

Plant scientist Agnes Ricroch at the University of Paris-Saclay and French Academy of Agriculture in France, welcomed the proposal, pointing to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its impact on food supply in Europe, as well as the need to adapt crops for new climate conditions. We need to increase yields for wheat, corn, rapeseed, sunflower, she says. NGTs can accelerate the process of breeding, though it will still take time.

She notes that climate change is bringing new pests and diseases into Europe and farmers will need new crop varieties. She adds that the proposals would encourage plant scientists to innovate and perhaps launch biotech start-up companies.

This is a great step by the European Union, says Jon Entine, director of the Genetic Literacy Project, which published the leaked draft. This document suggests that were going to put the issue back in the hands of farmers and scientist. He adds that this doesnt mean that ideology and politics wont have a role in shaping regulations, but for the first time it will mean that Europe will not be a scientific laggard on these issues.

Many NGOs have expressed opposition to the proposals in the draft document, nonetheless. The assumption the commission makes that new GMOs would lead to more sustainability are based on industrys claims, instead of real evidence, said Nina Holland, a researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory, in a media release. Since NGT seeds will be patented, this will erode farmers rights, and it will lead to a further monopolisation of the already highly concentrated seed market.

Plant scientist Sjef Smeekens at Utrech University, the Netherlands, warns the EU will import gene-edited foodstuffs from elsewhere and no one will know, since countries such as the US, Japan and Canada allow them without registration. If we in the EU opt out of this system, then it will have severe consequences for our breeding industry and academic research in plant science, he adds.

The proposal is expected to be published on 5 July. It must go before the European parliament and the Council of Ministers that represents each of the 27 EU member states. This legal position if accepted must operate in all EU countries. If a country like France or Germany really objects, then this is dead, says Smeekens.

The UK introduced a new law earlier this year to permit some gene editing of crops or livestock.

View original post here:
European Commission set to propose an overhaul of rules for gene ... - Chemistry World