Archive for the ‘Media Control’ Category

Multiple measures failed to control mis- and disinformation in Tunisia’s 2019 elections – Global Voices

Tunisia's election commission announcing results of the second round of the presidential poll on October 14, 2019. Photo by the election body [Public Domain].

In spite of a generally low youth voter turnout, the increase in youth participation in the second round of presidential elections reignited the debate over the influence of the internet, and particularly social media, in the outcome.

In the months leading up to the elections, mis- and disinformation spread widely across social media platforms, on Facebook in particular. Observers of the political scene noted the rise of political party- and candidate-affiliated Facebook groups and pages with substantial numbers of followers. Pages without stated ties or affiliations were also actively involved in spreading political disinformation and sponsored content praising certain parties and candidates.

Civil society groups, tech platforms, national institutions, and media professionals all adopted measures to counter the spread of mis- and disinformation during the electoral period. However, in light of the lack of transparency on the part of tech platforms, and the legal void surrounding the regulation of political ads on social media, these measures proved insufficient.

On September 2, the start date of the presidential election campaign, Access Now, along with 14 local civil society groups addressed an open letter to Facebook, asking the company to implement effective measures for transparency and accountability towards [its] users in the context of the upcoming Tunisian elections.

The letters signatories called on Facebook to take measures to allow voters to understand how political actors are using Facebook to influence election outcomes, including by allowing public access to information about the number of ads sponsored, the amount of money spent on each ad campaign, the demographics of the targeted audience, and enforcing an ad authorization process on political advertisers.

Coordinated inauthentic activities targeting Tunisia on Facebook

On October 3rd, Facebook announced the removal of 163 Facebook accounts, 51 Pages, 33 Groups and 4 Instagram accounts that were involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior originating from Egypt targeting ten countries including Tunisia. This is the third time this year that Facebook removes accounts involved in inauthentic behavior targeting Tunisia. In May of this year, a press release announced the removal of accounts responsible for similar activity originated from Israel. In January, the company removed 783 Pages, groups and accounts for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior tied to Iran targeting multiple countries including Tunisia.

Following the elections, Facebook responded to the open letter, stating that they have taken measures globally and in the MENA region to fight against misinformation, combat hate speech, and prevent foreign interference, AccessNow told Global Voices.

The company also said they had introduced a new authorization process for political and election-related ads in over 140 countries and territories, including Tunisia, and had made its ad library available in a number of countries outside the EU and North America, including Tunisia.

However, these measures are still not providing voters with sufficient information for them to understand who is trying to influence them and make informed decisions. This lack of transparency also makes it harder for national institutions to oversee political ad spending.

The level of information granularity provided to users appears to depend in which country the ad is running, reported a Privacy International analysis published in October 2019.

Facebook says that political ads are archived in its Ad library for seven years. However, Global Voices reviewed the ad libraries of three Facebook pages created in early September, at the start of the first round of the presidential election. These unofficial Facebook pages are a subset of the many that supported then-presidential candidates Abdelfattah Mourou, Salma Elloumi and Abdelkarim Zbidi, and they all ran political ads during the campaign. There are many other pages that supported the 23 other candidates that ran in the presidential election.

Today, the ad libraries of these three pages do not list any of their previous political ads.

This unofficial page supporting then-presidential candidate Abdelfattah Mourou ran political ads when campaigning for the first round of the presidential poll started in September. Screenshot taken and published on Twitter on September 6 by Mona Elswah.

Screenshot [taken on December 5] of the Ad Library of the above-mentioned Facebook page supporting Mourou. The library shows no record of the political ads posted during the presidential campaign.

The Ad Library that Facebook has built failed to provide any measures of transparency, and has only been functioning on a few pages. Ad Library of Facebook only shows the current running ads, but no details would be found on any of the previous/ non-current running ads, or even on any of those pages that have been taking down or its content.

This unofficial page supporting then-presidential candidate Salma Elloumi ran political ads when campaigning for the first round of the presidential poll started in September. Screenshot taken and published on Twitter on September 6 by Mona Elswah.

Screenshot [taken on December 5] of the Ad Library of the above-mentioned Facebook page supporting Elloumi. The library shows no record of the political ads posted during the presidential campaign.

The use of sponsored posts on Facebook also drew the scrutiny of the Independent High Authority for the Elections (ISIE). Nabil Baffoun, ISIEs president, pointed out in a press interview on October 7 that during an electoral campaign, the authority takes into account presidential candidates social media advertisements. Electoral campaigns and their financing are subject to the provisions of the Tunisian Electoral Law. In particular, Baffoun confirmed that sponsored pages appearing during the election campaign fall within the scope of Article 143 of the electoral law, which allows the ISIE and the Court of Auditors to impose sanctions for electoral violations, such as exceeding the spending limit and breaches of electoral silence.

In fact, on October 9, ISIE announced the cancellation of a portion of the votes obtained by the candidate of an electoral constituency representing the Tunisian diaspora in France, for breaching electoral silence through political advertisements on Facebook. The commission said that the candidate of 3ich Tounsi, a registered non-profit organisation that filed non-partisan electoral lists during the elections, obtained 207 votes as a result of this advertisement, directly impacting the electoral results in the constituency. No further explanation was given by the ISIE as to how this assessment was made.

This decision was criticized by candidates of the electoral list in question. The Tunisian Association for the Integrity and Democracy of Elections (ATIDE) also called for the electoral commission to adopt transparent measures by publishing its reports monitoring the use of Facebook in relation to the elections. ATIDE also called on the newly elected parliament to put in place a decisive and comprehensive legal framework on social media advertising during the elections.

A journalist reporting from a polling station on Election Day on October 13, 2019. Photo by the election body [public domain].

In August, the electoral commission (ISIE) and the Independent High Authority for Audiovisual Communication (HAICA), the country's broadcast regulator, issued a joint decision comprising four chapters and 49 articles establishing the rules for media coverage of election campaigns. These required local and foreign broadcast media covering the elections to respect the principles of equal opportunity and equity between candidates. The rules did not apply to electronic media.

In partnership with the Council of Europe, HAICA also hosted capacity-building workshops as part of efforts to help media professionals develop the necessary skills to exercise their role in providing reliable and high-quality information.

Several fact-checking initiatives were also launched.

HAICA, along with the public broadcaster and the Tunisian Press Agency (TAP), launched a fact-checking platform dedicated to exposing misleading information spread online.

Privately-owned digital media websites also launched their own fact-checking initiatives. A few months before the elections, Business News launched BNCheck, a fact-checking platform reporting that continues to operate. Online magazine LEconomiste Maghrbin launched the #FactCheckTNDecides hashtag to verify statements and facts given by presidential candidates during televised presidential dabaes.

During a debate reflecting on LEconomiste Maghrbin's fact-checking experience, journalists highlighted the high financial costs of fact-checking, citing the need for additional recruitment, specialized software and training for journalists.

The relationship between technology, elections, and democracy will develop further in the long term. The spread of disinformation and the rise of foreign interference, among other concerns, have become significant threats for tech companies, national institutions, journalists and voters.

In Tunisia, the shortcomings in the current legislation and the lack of safeguards to prevent future incidents, indicate that cooperation between involved parties and joint efforts to develop countermeasures are crucial in upholding the integrity of elections, and the country's democratic process in general.

This article is part of a series of posts examining interference with digital rights through methods such as shutdowns and disinformation during key political events in seven African countries: Algeria, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. The project is funded by the Africa Digital Rights Fund of The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA).

Excerpt from:
Multiple measures failed to control mis- and disinformation in Tunisia's 2019 elections - Global Voices

Signatures Submitted to Qualify 2020 California Rent Control Initiative – ConnectCRE

December 9, 2019

Rent control activists have again submitted signatures to qualify a new initiative for Californias 2020 ballot. The failed 2018 initiative prompted a legislative solution brokered by state lawmakers and the Governor capping rent increases without seemingly derailing apartment investors and owners operating in the state.

That collaborative solution, as Connect Media reported following a Marcus & Millichap rapid response webinar in October, made substantial strides addressing the issue from a common ground approach with Californias multifamily industry representatives. M&Ms Research Director John Chang said at the time that from the fundamental revenue and income producing aspect, the new law generally wont have a huge effect on the majority of assets.

That could change dramatically next year since Californias voter initiative is a plenary power that transcends legislative powers and could erase the brokered solution. Expect industry leaders to analyze potential impacts as Californias Secretary of State verifies signatures.

Read more at Sac Bee

California Apartment Association Members Read more here

Subscribe to Connect Daily California

For comments, questions or concerns, please contact Chris Egger

Tags: Apartments & Multifamily, Politics

apartments politics

news properties top-ca

Signatures Submitted to Qualify 2020 California Rent Control Initiative

chrisegger

Read more from the original source:
Signatures Submitted to Qualify 2020 California Rent Control Initiative - ConnectCRE

The Countries Imprisoning The Most Journalists In 2019 [Infographic] – Forbes

For the fourth consecutive year, at least 250 journalists are being held in prisons around the world with authoritarian governments continuing to clamp down on critical media coverage. The Committee to Protect Journalists, an advocacy group, has released its annual census, finding that Turkey is no longer the worst jailer for the first time in four years. In 2019, China is the country jailing the most journalists and 48 are currently being held behind bars.

Over the years, Turkey and China have consistently vied for the unenviable title as the world's worst jailer of journalists and the latter has experienced an increase in line with President Xi Jinping consolidating his control over the country and implementing tighter controls on the media. Arrests have been particularly notable in Xinjiang province where there has been a crackdown on the ethnic Muslim community. That has led to the arrest of dozens of journalists, some of whom were incarcerated for media activity carried out years earlier.

Turkey comes a close second for imprisonments, with its total falling from 68 last year to 47 this year. That decline does not represent an improvement in the Turkish media's situation, however. Rather, it reflects successful efforts by President Erdoan to clamp down on independent reporting and criticism by closing down over 100 news outlets. The CPJ stated that dozens of journalists not currently jailed in Turkey are still facing trial or appeal and could yet be sentenced to prison while others have been sentenced in absentia and could face arrest upon their return to the country.

After the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia's attitude towards critical journalism needs no introduction. As of December 2019, the kingdom has at least 26 journalists imprisoned and no charges have been disclosed in 18 of those cases. Alongside Egypt, Saudi Arabia has the third-highest total on the CPJ's ranking. Eritrea follows with at least 16 jailed journalists, most of whom have not been heard from in nearly two decades. 98% of all imprisoned journalists in 2019 are locals covering their own country - three of the four journalists with foreign citizenship are behind bars in Saudi Arabia while the fourth is being held in China. The majority of jailed journalists are facing anti-state charges while the number charged with "false news" has increased to 30 compared to 28 last year.

*Click below to enlarge (charted byStatista)

Countries with the highest number of jailed journalists in 2019

Read more:
The Countries Imprisoning The Most Journalists In 2019 [Infographic] - Forbes

POSITIVELY SPEAKING: Be mindful of others trying to control you – MyWebTimes.com

The national media is absorbed by impeachment proceedings while most of the nation has tuned out. Regardless of which side of the aisle you reside, most Americans recognize the extreme partisan agenda of the process. There is no thoughtful discussion of events, only hardline talking points crafted to influence the proceedings.

Im not a political columnist. My mission is to awaken the optimism of my readers and encourage a more positive approach to life. As I have pointed out numerous times, optimistic people live happier, healthier and more successful lives. This claim isnt just my opinion but proven through a plethora of clinical and university studies. Now there is evidence that optimistic people may live as much as seven years longer than those with a pessimistic outlook on life.

We become what we focus upon.

What we allow to occupy space in our heads, influences our every action and deeply impacts our overall attitude. Because of civic duty, I am keeping up with the impeachment proceedings, but I also recognize it is largely based upon political agenda and less on actionable facts which I believe is shameful.

If you watch the proceedings and make your own decision, good for you. However, most people are busy making a living and navigating their lives. Few can sit and take it all in as it happens. Instead, they tune into their favorite television opinion journalist (and I use that title loosely) to get their info. The problem is that none of the talking heads want to give you facts. Instead, their goal is to win you over to their way of thinking. They want to seize your mind and, in the process, influence your vote. Period.

Sean Hannity is a partisan opinion influencer on Fox News, while Rachel Maddow is the same for MSNBC. Philosophically they could not be more different. They are polar-opposites, yet one-and-the-same when it comes to their agenda of winning you over to their side. They are both shamelessly partisan, mouthing political talking points from their side of the aisle and are nothing more than political commercials for their party and agenda. And its not just Hannity and Maddow, it is most hosts on our primetime cable channels. There is not a network in America today that isnt openly displaying their bias. Take for example, Bloomberg Business News, a formerly reliable source. They have openly declared that they will only cover Donald Trump and his campaign and not a single Democratic challenger. What happened to Bloomberg News? They are no longer a news network but an activist machine for their founder who is now running for president. Did real news ever exist? Or are we only finally waking up to the fact that television and radio pundits have been trying to manipulate us all along?

So, what is optimistic and positive about all this?

Hannity, Maddow and other pundits only have the power we give them by watching and believing they are in the news business. They are not. Becoming aware of the reality of their manipulation allows you the option to decide not to be manipulated. When we are aware of what their agenda really is, we become more discerning. We weigh their claims for reality rather than accepting whatever comes out of their mouths. Once we begin doing so, the talking heads lose their power over us and we instead take the power back. That is positive.

I encourage all of us to be discerning this election cycle and beyond. Ask questions. Listen to and read sources from all channels and stations. Do not allow a familiar face on a television screen that you have never met to control your beliefs. Become a smart and savvy citizen, not a clone of your favorite talking head. They are not your friend. They do not have your best interests at heart. We are smarter than that. We deserve better than what they are dishing.

I believe the American people are smart and want the best for our nation and world. We have been hijacked by infotainment masquerading as news, but once we realize what they are trying to do, we take back control.

Be positive. Be discerning. Always remain aware of the agenda. Get your information from a variety of sources and make decisions based upon your educated opinion.

GARY W. MOORE is a freelance columnist, speaker and author of three books including the award-winning, critically acclaimed, Playing with the Enemy. Follow Gary on Twitter @GaryWMoore721 and at http://www.garywmoore.com

Excerpt from:
POSITIVELY SPEAKING: Be mindful of others trying to control you - MyWebTimes.com

Vacancy Control, Not Rent Caps, is the Worry: Coldwell Banker Commercial’s Q&A with Flynn Investments’ Russell Flynn – ConnectCRE

December 11, 2019

Multifamily rent control is at the top of the commercial real estate news, leading many to make dire predictions about how legislative caps will impact development or investment. Russell Flynn, founder and head of Flynn Investments, owns 4,000 multifamily units in and around the San Francisco Bay Area, and has been a multifamily investor in Northern California for decades. In 1979, former San Francisco mayor (and current U.S. senator) Dianne Feinstein appointed him to the citys Rent Board. That same year, Flynn launched the Coalition for Better Housing, an industry group of large apartment owners advocating for property rights. Coldwell Banker Commercials Managing Director Dan Spiegel recently spoke with Flynn about recent rent control legislation, and how it might impact multifamily investment, development and growth.

Q. California recently signed Assembly Bill 1482 in early October 2019, putting rent increase caps on multifamily properties. Oregon also signed rent-control legislation earlier this year, and other municipalities and states are considering it. Should we be concerned?A. I think efforts to control rents and maintain affordability are cyclical. We saw waves of rent control legislation during the 1980s and 1990s, then those were repealed. The theory is that, if rents on sitting tenants are capped, it means they wont be gouged with sudden increases, thereby making housing more affordable. The recent legislation is leading to concerns that, if property owners and landlords cant raise rents, it will scare off investors and developers. Investors and developers have worked within rent-control guidelines, and they are doing just fine. They know the rules. The actual issue that landlords, investors and property owners need to worry about is vacancy control legislation.

Q. What is vacancy control legislation, and why is it a potential challenge?A. Under rent control legislation, rent increases are capped for sitting tenants. It means that, while owners and landlords CAN raise rents, they are capped as to how much. Vacancy control legislation kicks in when the tenant vacates the property. In a typical unit turnover situation, the landlord invests money to improve the empty unit, then charges a higher rent to the next tenant. But, when you introduce vacancy control into the mix, the landlord is capped as to how much he or she can charge that next tenant. This means that the landlord doesnt have much incentive to improve the units between tenants; there is no profit motivation to do so. As a result, units fall apart and are more uncomfortable to live in. Berkeley and Santa Monica had vacancy control legislation until the state passed the Costa Hawkins Act in 1995, which prohibited vacancy control ordinances.

Q. What do you think is the takeaway from the legislation?A. Many investors and owners operate under rent-control legislation, and are doing just fine. And in reality, you cant buy a building and suddenly increase your rents to market rate anyway. Landlords prefer to keep rents from 5%-10% below market. Also, there is an inherent, safety factor built into rent control buildings, which saves us from our worst instincts to raise rents, refinance, then keep on buying; this leads to overleveraging, which is what got investors in trouble during the 2007-2009 downturn. Also, the California rent control act is pretty lenient, compared to laws in Oakland or Los Angeles, which are stricter. Rent control doesnt mean you absolutely cant raise rents with existing tenants, it just means the increase is capped. Investors need to be patient in rent-control environments, with the understanding that returns increase upon unit turnover and improvement.

Connect With Coldwell Banker Commercial

Get CRE News in 150 words

For comments, questions or concerns, please contact Amy Sorter

Tags: Apartments & Multifamily, Opportunity Zones

apartments opportunity-zones

connect-apartments connect-classroom united-states

Vacancy Control, Not Rent Caps, is the Worry: Coldwell Banker Commercials Q&A with Flynn Investments Russell Flynn

Amy Wolff Sorter

See more here:
Vacancy Control, Not Rent Caps, is the Worry: Coldwell Banker Commercial's Q&A with Flynn Investments' Russell Flynn - ConnectCRE