Mediaboss Marketing

Since ancient times, to be exiled has been considered as definitive as capital punishment. Under Roman law, in fact, voluntary exile was offered to a prisoner as an alternative to death; the word itself is derived from the Latin solum or soil, and to be exiled was to be taken away from ones soil or land. Srinivasa Ramanujan, the Indian mathematics genius, agonized over going to Cambridge since crossing the oceans would exile him from his community. Napoleon Bonaparte and Bahadur Shah Zafar both died in exile and ignominy, with the latter pleading for a measly six feet of his homeland for burial.

President Donald J. Trump would have perhaps realized the true meaning of the word in the dying days of his presidency, as he was subjected to the modern version of exilede-platforming. Trump might have lived in the White House, but he existed on Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, his true homes. It was the systematic use of these platforms that made him president, and it was these platforms that sustained him. Twitter was his megaphone, the tweets he sent equalled to executive orders, and YouTube and Twitter were where his conspiracy groups flourished. In one fell swoop, all of them were taken away as Twitter banned him permanently and the others indefinitely. Since then, Trump seems to have gone silent. He has tried to send out a few missives in a traditional fashionspeeches, statements, videosbut they didnt get far.

This radical move by tech companiesto remove the president of their own country from their platformshas had an expectedly vociferous response. His critics applauded the move. But many of them have also been horrified. German chancellor Angela Merkel, various French ministers, and the Mexican President criticized the move. On Twitter, Russian dissident Aleksei Navalny wrote: This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world. Every time when they need to silence someone, they will say: This is just common practice, even Trump got blocked on Twitter."

The ones that have been universally criticized for this action are the platforms themselvesnot as much for making the move, but either for doing it too late or only when it served their interests. As long as he was president, who not only held political power but was responsible for billions in advertising revenue, they pussyfooted around his offensive and inflammatory statements. Once he became a lame-duck president, they took him off, no doubt provoked by the storming of the Capitol by the frenzied mob he used their platforms to instigate.

The move is riddled with contradictions. The platform companys definition of the internet as open was good as long as it served them, but the moment they became profit machines, their incentives were aligned elsewhere, with users becoming the product. Their reputation for neutrality took a hit after they started the algorithmic manipulation of users to maximize engagement and profits, and stifle innovation. They extolled freedom of speech and the US First Amendment, projected themselves as pure platforms with no editorial control, and thus escaped responsibility. In de-platforming the president, they have clearly acted as publishers.

At the same time, these companies have the right to do what they did. They can do whatever they want," said Kara Swisher, a tech journalist. Theyre private businesses. Very similar to a restaurant where someone comes in and rants and starts to threaten violence and things like that... they get kicked out."

The real issue is not that these platforms are self-serving, but that they are monopolies. Bigger, and less noticed was the move by AWS, Shopify and Twilio to take out Parler, a Twitter alternative and a prominent gathering place of Trump supporters. If you are off AWS, Azure and Google Cloud, you cannot have a website; if Amazon and Shopify ban you, you cannot sell much; if Twitter, Facebook and YouTube de-platform you, you lose your voice.

Among the various firsts that he has racked up, Trump is the first president to be impeached twice. But as New York Times Kevin Roose writes, A successful impeachment [with a conviction] would be an embarrassing end to Mr. Trumps political career. But losing his huge online following would deprive him of cultural influence long into the future."

In this connected world, if your country deports you, there are many other places you could live and stay in touch with your friends, culture and ethos. If tech companies de-platform you, you might as well not exist, which is the true definition of exile.

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Originally posted here:
Donald Trumps exile and the power of social media platforms - Mint

Only hours after gaining full control of Congress, House Democrats are going after Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube for the platforms perceived roles in inciting violence at the Capitol earlier this month.

In letters addressed to the chief executives of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), along with dozens of other members, called for the companies to make sweeping changes to their platforms to curb violent and extremist activity on their networks.

The lawmakers accused the companies of using certain product features and algorithms that boost content that evokes extreme emotions as a means of increasing engagement, pointing out specific features they want to see changed on each platform. For YouTube, lawmakers said they would like to see the company disable auto-play and stop recommending any conspiratorial content alongside videos or on users homepages. Facebook was asked to start a fundamental reexamination of its use of user engagement as the basis of algorithmic sorting and recommendation. Lawmakers also asked Twitter to begin prompting users to quote-tweet tweets instead of automatically retweeting them when the retweet button is selected.

The horrific damage to our democracy wrought on January 6th demonstrated how these social media platforms played a role in radicalizing and emboldening terrorists to attack our Capitol, Eshoo said in a statement Thursday. These American companies must fundamentally rethink algorithmic systems that are at odds with democracy.

Facebook and YouTube declined to comment. A Twitter spokesperson said they had received the letter and planned to respond.

Earlier Thursday, House Oversight Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) called on FBI Director Chris Wray to open an investigation into Parler, a conservative-leaning Twitter dupe, following the pro-Trump Capitol attack.

Maloney said that the House Oversight Committee would begin its own probe into Parler and other social media websites like it. In an interview with The Washington Post, Maloney said, I am going to get to the bottom of who owns and funds social media platforms like Parler that condone and create violence.

Updated 1/21/21 at 6:03PM ET: Included statement from Twitter.

Updated 1/21/21 at 7:47PM ET: Updated to include that Facebook and YouTube declined to comment.

Read more from the original source:
Dems push Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube for anti-radicalization changes after Capitol attack - The Verge

Data-Driven Thinking is written by members of the media community and contains fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media.

Todays column is written by Joel Meyer, Chief Architect atOpenX.

While theres no clear cut answer around what the future of audience targeting will look like, practically every proposal is supported by one of two opposing core beliefs.

The first is the belief that the only way to fully protect a user is to make them anonymous, a task that must be accomplished by the browser or device used to consume content. Lets call this the Browser/Device Belief. In proposals falling under this belief, the user is anonymous and the browser/device develops functionality to facilitate advertising. Googles TURTLEDOVE and Apples SKAdNetwork are prime examples of this. Its also worth noting that Google and Apple control the majority of browsers and operating systems used today.

The second belief holds that an informed and empowered user, with controls and transparency, can implement the privacy they desire while better understanding the value exchange powering the open web. Lets call this belief the user belief, as the proposals motivated by it strive to educate the user and give them more control without requiring them to be completely anonymous. An example of this is Unified ID 2.0, which gives the user the ability to centrally manage and delete their information in exchange for providing vendors access to a stable identifier.

So what are the pros/cons of each solution?

In these solutions, the client (i.e. the browser or device) anonymizes the user by removing any vectors that allow a user to be passively identified. This ensures privacy by default and prevents bad actors from tracking the user against their will. It also places very little extra burden on the user - the browser/device transparently anonymizes them and the user does not need to worry about how it actually happens.

While these approaches protect the user without requiring anything of them (other than potentially updating their browser/device settings), there are several concerns.

First, as noted above, most clients used to consume content are controlled by Google (Chrome and Android) and Apple (Safari and iOS). So these tech giants, who already have walled gardens of a significant size, gain more power, which goes against what almost everyone else in the industry is looking for, and exacerbates concerns publishers and marketers have about a lack of competition and choice.

Second, it increases the complexity of the advertising ecosystem. For example, in the TURTLEDOVE class of proposals, the browser must develop significant logic to support advertising use cases. It also needs to cache creatives in multiple sizes and formats, and it needs to send an increased number of ad requests.

Marketers struggling to find the most direct and valuable path to inventory are going to have an even harder time, and ad tech vendors will need to develop even more complex technology to support an ecosystem where it is already difficult to optimize and track campaign effectiveness.

User Belief Solutions:

The User Belief solutions would create a common currency for targeting and attribution bringing something to the open web that has historically only been possible in the walled gardens.

If executed correctly, the user would get a level of control and transparency not previously possible, and publishers would gain the opportunity to establish a transparent and consent-based relationship with their users based on a fair value trade (content/service for authentication) while helping educate them about the value exchange that funds the content they consume.

However, this approach faces challenges as well.

First, users need a service that they can trust and use nearly ubiquitously. Remembering logins, implementing privacy settings, and managing consent across a dozen different single sign-ons is not ideal. This is not an argument against a diversity of identity solutions, but a reminder that we will need broad adoption of a number of them.

Second, depending on the vertical, many publishers have difficulty getting users to authenticate directly with them, so they will need to be able to easily integrate with the available identity solutions and provide users a very lightweight authentication experience. Getting scale with this will be challenging, though as Prebid.js has shown, not impossible.

Finally, identity solutions must be managed in a way that engenders trust with the parties that rely on them. Users need to know their information is accessible only to entities they allow. Publishers need to know a critical service they depend on is reliable. Ad tech participants need to know that fraud wont be tolerated. And these things need to be true for all ID services that are adopted.

So whats next?

As publishers grapple with these two competing approaches, there are a few specific things they can do to help prepare for the future.

First and most importantly, those impacted by the death of the cookie should educate themselves on the different solutions being proposed for browsers, IDs and alternatives like contextual targeting. Understand what your tech partners are doing to prepare, and see what seems to be gaining traction.

Second, publishers should deepen relationships with marketers. By staying close to the demand side, publishers can see which solutions are being adopted and where budgets are shifting, indicating where publishers should shift focus and resources. Private marketplace deals will also become an even bigger focus for many publishers in 2021 as they look to stay top of mind and drive deal revenue even after cookies disappear.

Third, publishers should talk to their SSP partners to understand ID activation capabilities for both pubs and marketers. As different industry solutions emerge as the winners, pubs need to be sure their partners have the pipes to capitalize.

Finally, we should change expectations. The way we do targeting and attribution on campaigns today wont be the same when cookies go away and it may take a long time to reestablish KPIs and benchmarks. Understanding that were all figuring this out together can go a long way towards making sure that we end up in a place that works for everyone.

Follow OpenX (@OpenX) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Follow this link:
The Two Approaches To Identity, And What They Mean For Pubs - AdExchanger

Harrisburg, PA The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is finalizing development and testing of an electronic permitting (ePermitting) system for Chapter 102 permit applications for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities.

Increasing the availability of online permitting is another way DEP is improving efficiency and providing certainty for applicants, said DEP Secretary Patrick McDonnell. This new option for applications will reduce workload for staff, allowing improved permit reviews.

The Chapter 102 ePermit system will save time for applicants, County Conservation District (CCD) staff, and DEP reviewers. One of the overall goals of DEPs ePermitting effort is to improve the efficiency of submission and reviews of permit applications and Notices of Intent (NOIs) and allow faster responses to applicants regarding permit submission, review, and issuance. The system will also include online payment of certain fees for applications, will reduce the expense of printing design drawings, and make information available in real-time to the public (which will increase transparency). DEP and CCD are still accepting paper applications; however, DEP expects to eventually completely replace paper applications with electronic submission.

DEPs Bureau of Clean Water administers the statewide Erosion and Sediment Control (E&S) program under Pennsylvania Code Title 25 (Environmental Protection) Chapter 102. Chapter 102 requires a permit from DEP for construction activities involving one or more acres of earth disturbance, timber harvesting and road maintenance activities involving 25 or more acres of earth disturbance, and oil and gas and other activities involving five or more acres of earth disturbance.

The initial release of the Chapter 102 ePermit system will include new NOIs for coverage under the PAG-02 General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities and NOIs for PAG-02 amendments of coverage for applications that were originally processed in the ePermit system.

Development of the Chapter 102 ePermitting effort was built on other DEP ePermitting efforts, including the Oil and Gas Management and Chapter 105 ePermitting efforts. The Chapter 102 effort engaged CCDs, PennDOT, and engineering consultants.

MEDIA CONTACT: Jamar Thrasher 717-319-1758

Excerpt from:
Chapter 102 Electronic Permit System to be Released Monday - Governor Tom Wolf

Egyptian security forces have arrested a pastry chef who supplied cupcakes with penis decorations for a private birthday party at a sporting club in a wealthy Cairo neighbourhood.

In the latest example of the Egyptian states attempts to control public morality, which tend to target women, the female chef was arrested at her home after party attenders shared photos of the cupcakes with members of the Gezira club and on social media.

State media reported that security forces identified the baker after taking statements from eyewitnesses.

The case attracted the attention of the minister for youth and sports, Dr Ashraf Sobhy, who oversees clubs such as Gezira. Sobhy said his department would form a committee to investigate the incident and punish alleged perpetrators.

The baker has been interrogated by the same misdemeanour court that recently tried the Egyptian actor Rania Youssef on charges of contempt of Islam and infringing Egyptian family values, after she commented on her own physique during a television programme.

Earlier this month two female TikTok influencers who served jail terms last year for violating family values and harming public morals were acquitted.

In June 2020 the renowned bellydancer Sama El Masry was jailed for three years and fined 300,000 Egyptian pounds (equivalent to 14,025) for violating family values and immorality.

Egypts tabloids delighted in publishing pictures of the cupcakes, with the offending decorations blurred out. Egypts largest state-owned newspaper, Al Ahram, described the confections as indecent and immoral shapes.

Timothy E Kaldas from the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy said: On one level its hard not to be initially struck by the absurdity of penis cupcakes garnering the attention of state prosecutors, police investigators, members of parliament and the regime-controlled press. At the core of the matter is not the banning of sexuality in the public sphere, it is restricting sexuality that is outside the control of men.

Al Masry Al Youm newspaper reported that the pastry chef was in tears when she arrived at a prosecution office in Cairo. According to the paper, she told interrogators that patrons of the club came to my shop and handed me pictures of genitals, and asked me for cakes in these forms.

After questioning by prosecutors, the baker was released on a bail of 5,000 EGP (233).

Go here to see the original:
Egyptian chef arrested after making cupcakes with penis decorations - The Guardian