Mediaboss Marketing

There have been, over recent days, two important contributions to the debate on who controls and, more importantly, who is responsible for the accuracy of online information.

In recent weeks and months there have been examples of how that information, sometimes toxic misinformation, is manipulated to serve malign purposes.

The father of the web, Tim Berners-Lee, launched a global plan to save the web from political manipulation, fake news, privacy violations and dark forces that promise a digital dystopia. Despite his idealism, that horse has bolted as Russian puppeteering in elections confirms.

Whether the horse can be recaptured is a pressing question.

At the Anti-Defamation Leagues Never is Now summit in New York, Sacha Baron Cohen described Facebook as the greatest propaganda machine in history.

He outlined how the Silicon Six put profit before the integrity of democracies, historical accuracy, or even climate change. His targets are all American billionaires, Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, Sundar Pichai at Google, at its parent company Alphabet, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Brins former sister-in-law, Susan Wojcicki at YouTube, and Jack Dorsey at Twitter.

This is ideological imperialism six unelected individuals ... imposing their vision on the rest of the world, unaccountable to any government and acting like theyre above the reach of law.

Its like were living in the Roman Empire, and Zuckerberg is Caesar, warned Cohen. It is impossible to dismiss his wake-up-and-join-the-dots arguments.

Britains chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, has done just that. He has intervened, reluctantly he says, in the UKs election and accused Jeremy Corbyn of allowing a poison sanctioned from the top to take root in Labour, saying Jews are justifiably anxious about the prospect of the party forming Britains next government.

Labour has denied suggestions it has not confronted antisemitism. Mirvis remarks, endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, must be coloured by resurgent antisemitism in Europe.

It would be dangerously unwise to pretend the fantasy world of unanswerable social media has not led the revival of Europes antisemitism just as it has been a catalyst for anti-immigration policies, climate change deniers and even those who reject the proven science of vaccinations. Trump and Brexit too.

It impossible to imagine the protests around proposed direct provision centres would have gathered momentum without social media drum-beating.

It may be, but not certain, that two of the candidates in this weeks Dil by-elections regret using social media to target minorities. It is not hard to argue, either, that myriad online hate fests sustain sectarianism on this island even though the great majority want to live as good neighbours.

But what can a small country do in the face of the greatest propaganda machine in history?

Our best hope of averting a digital dystopia lies in working with the EU to confront these monsters but, ironically, this tsunami of data imposes an obligation on all of us to do more to win now fact from poisonous fiction. And preferably before the idea of truth is made as redundant as wax tablets.

Link:
Out-of-control social media - Its time to check the Silicon Six - Irish Examiner

The internet isnt always the safest place for adults, especially considering the amount of privacy we forfeit every time we share information about ourselves online. But what about kids and babies? How safe is it for them?

This episode of the Reset podcast explores whats at risk for children when the adults in charge choose to sharent, or put out photos and videos about them on social media.

In the first part of the episode, guests Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway co-hosts of the Recode podcast Pivot and parents admit they both post photos of their children online with varying degrees of privacy. Im a terrible sharent. I dont know how else to put it, Swisher tells host Arielle Duhaime-Ross, saying shes shared pictures of her children for a long time. Galloway, on the other hand, made his Instagram private because he finds it somewhat performative when other people post pictures of their kids before the age of consent.

Later in the episode, Leah Plunkett, author of Sharenthood: Why we should think before we talk about our kids online, explains the potential dangers that lurk with having anything about your children on the internet, whether its shared to a private account or not.

We know that a number of the images that are pornographic of children are pictures of real kids that are taken offline and photoshopped or otherwise retouched. We know that childrens identities are particularly vulnerable to identity theft because most children would have no legitimate reason to have their Social Security number tied to a credit product.

According to her, privacy is a myth when you consider that someone can always take screenshots of your private content or access it if someone who follows your locked account has their phone stolen.

Any time a picture is shared digitally on social media, you should assume that it could get out of your control, she warns.

She adds that any device in your home that is taking in digital data and sharing it back to a software application poses a potential danger. That means home cameras like Nest, home assistants like Alexa, or the Echo Dot Kids.

Listen to the entire conversation here. Below, weve also shared a lightly edited transcript of Plunketts conversation with Duhaime-Ross.

Listen and subscribe to Reset on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or Spotify.

I think that the desire to connect with people we know and make connections with new people by bonding over our kids is really natural and beautiful. But the technology tricks us into not realizing just how public it is.

Some studies suggest that kids will have well over 1,000 pictures of them on social media well before theyre 5 years old. And those pictures and the information that comes with them, theyre not private.

So even if your social media settings are set to private, all it takes is for somebody to take a screenshot of that picture and then repost it in a public-facing way or for somebody to have crept into your social circle under false pretenses.

So you think youre sharing with a closed community and youre really not. I really do worry about thinking were keeping something private when actually were broadcasting it to thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people.

What exactly are the risks? Worst-case scenario, what are we talking about when we talk about people sharing photos of their children on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook?

So we know that a number of the images that are pornographic of children are pictures of real kids that are taken offline and photoshopped or otherwise retouched. We know that childrens identities are particularly vulnerable to identity theft because most children would have no legitimate reason to have their Social Security number tied to a credit product.

So if you are an identity thief or somebody intent on obtaining credit in someone elses name, you can get a Social Security number through a data breach like Anthem or some of the other big high-profile data breaches that have had Socials attached to them. And then you combine that with information about age, location, exact date of birth and other details that we parents share readily.

Its so easy to create false credit applications in kids names

And the government doesnt stop that? Nobody is going, Hey, this kid is asking for a line of credit. That is weird. This child is 6 months old?

The government will come after it and bring an enforcement action or a criminal prosecution once it happens.

My main reaction is, 1) people dont like being told not to share pictures of their kids online. And 2) even if you are the kind of parent whos going to be really, really careful, there are no systems set up for you to be absolutely certain that you are doing the best by your child.

You are right on both counts.

There is no systems set up. Even those of us who are really trying to think about privacy when it comes to social media are put in a really tough position because short of something happening to our childs image that violates criminal law [like when] somebody takes it off the internet and manufactures into it there are not a lot of law enforcement or regulatory mechanisms keeping an eye on the Wild West of social media when it comes to childrens pictures and their data.

As a parent, youre really left to your own devices. Do you want to try to parse through all the terms of use and privacy policies for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or whatever the next thing will be?

The studies show that most of us dont read these terms of use and privacy policies. And even if we do read them, good luck understanding them. I say this as somebody who studies them: I have trouble.

What would you say to a parent who doesnt think that a picture of their child naked in a sink or a bathtub is a problem if its shared on a private Instagram that has very few followers?

I would say that theyre right, that they are taking more precautions than, lets say, posting it on Twitter and tagging it #nakedbabyinabathtub.

But any time a picture is shared digitally on social media, you should assume that it could get out of your control.

It could get out of your control if one of your followers loses their phone and someone else gets it, if one of your followers takes a screenshot of it and re-shares it or has their phone hacked into, and even if you feel really confident that your five Instagram followers are your best friend, your parents, and your grandma so you trust them completely and feel like the odds of them losing their device are slim you still cant control or even really know what may be happening behind the tech company scenes with those images.

So Id say to that parent that what theyre doing is lower risk than certain behaviors. But its not no-risk. My rule of thumb to parents is dont post pictures in any stages of undress.

How is that any different than the risks for adults? Why focus specifically on kids?

Because parents especially (but also teachers, grandparents, and other trusted adults), we have to step in and serve as the legal decision-makers for our kids when it comes to their images and their information.

Any time that you are being asked to step into someone elses shoes and serve as their watchdog, you have a heightened moral responsibility to make sure that youre minimizing the risk that they could be exposed to.

Im not sharing stuff on social media, what other data might be accessible about my kid?

If you are using any smart devices in your home or any sensor-based devices, then they are going to pick up information about your children. So a Nest cam, a smart TV, or a smart diaper (which is a real thing).

Any device in your home that is taking in digital data and sharing it back to a software application or other type of digital infrastructure is taking your kids private information and having it leave your home.

Thats actually kind of terrifying. Whats the solution here? Are you advocating for parents to become technophobes or luddites?

So much about having a child these days is involved in setting them up for success by making sure that they have early interactions with tech. But it sounds like youre saying to hold off on that.

I am advocating that all of us start to just have more conversations about it and raise our own awareness. Parents should look for low-tech or no-tech ways to do particularly intimate things. So, for instance, going back to the smart diaper, if [there isnt a medical reason for it], maybe just think about changing that diaper the old-fashioned way.

While Im not advocating for parents to become technophobes, I am advocating for us to make values-based decisions and think when we are using a digital technology or service, whether it is social media to stay connected or an Alexa or other home assistant: Are the benefits from that outweighing the potential privacy risks and the potential downstream risks to childrens current and future opportunities?

Its very reasonable for parents to say, My social media settings are set to private so I feel pretty confident that the images arent being re-shared. I dont really care if surveillance technology uses my kids pictures and it is worth it to me to stay connected to my family in Australia, for instance.

I dont advocate parents break their phones or go live in a hut in the woods. But I do advocate that we all raise our awareness that there are hidden costs and hidden risks to doing things digitally.

Listen to the full episode and subscribe to Reset on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or Spotify.

See the original post here:
What to know before posting a photo of your kids on social media - Vox.com

We learn from the RightScale (now Flexera) 2019 State of the Cloud Report that cloud adoption has become pretty much universal, and public cloud adoption is growing significantly. Some of the key report takeaways are:

The same report also highlights that the top cloud challenge for the third year in a row is managing cloud spend, while optimizing cloud costs is the #1 priority of central IT. The respondents themselves estimate that 27% of their cloud spend is wasted, while Flexera has measured actual waste among their customers at 35%. But managing cloud budgets effectively requires near real-time visibility into actual costsoften across multiple accounts, numerous projects, and a multitude of self-provisioning users.

This is a two-part blog post series. In this first post, we explore the Amazon Web Services (AWS) suite of cost. Later next week, well explore the usage of management tools that can help you take control of your AWS bill.

As of early 2018, the AWS Cost and Usage report has become the default AWS tool for tracking and billing cloud usage. Downloaded from the Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) console, this CSV report contains a line item for each usage of an AWS resource or service. Three times a day, a cumulative update is delivered to a user-specified Amazon S3 bucket. At the end of the month, the report is finalized into an invoice.

The AWS Cost and Usage report is free of charge (up to five reports per AWS account). With line items aggregated on either an hourly or daily basis (as specified by the account owner), a report can contain literally millions of lines. In this section, we review how the report is structured and the key cost elements that it tracks.

A number of fields in the report are dedicated to precisely identifying the AWS product for which the charge has been incurred. These fields include the instance type (such as Amazon EC2), the instance type family (such as t2 or m4), the operating system, the product family (such as compute or storage), and the geographic AWS Region in which the usage took place. In addition, a unique SKU is generated for each product by combining three line item details (see Line Items: Defining Billing and Usage Parameters below): ProductCode, UsageType, and Operation.

The line item fields provide detailed information on the type of operation, its relevant costs, and various high-level billing parameters, such as the legal billing entity, the billing currency, the taxes to be applied, and the type of charge (which could also be a refund or a credit).

For example, the three line item fields that are used to generate the product SKU (see Identifying the Product above) are:

For on-demand resources (versus Reserved Instances, see Tracking Reserved Instances below), usage duration metrics are provided by three fields:

The cost of on-demand usage for a single account is shown in the UnblendedCost field, which is calculated by multiplying the UnblendedRate (the current AWS pricing rate for the resource or service) by the UsageAmount. See Consolidated Billing below for an explanation of blended costs across multiple accounts when using the AWS Organizations service.

Reserved Instances (RIs) are pre-provisioned instance-hours for AWS resources such as Amazon EC2 or Amazon Relational Database Service (Amazon RDS) instances. In general, the usage costs for pre-provisioned resources are significantly lower than for on-demand resources. The depth of the RI discount is determined by the term (one or three years) and the payment model (All Upfront, Partial Upfront, or No Upfront). If the RIs are all in the same Availability Zone, they are also a capacity reservation. In addition, Linux or Unix Amazon EC2 RIs in the same Region (and configured for shared tenancy) are size-flexible. In other words, the RI discount, which is normally applicable only to the specified instance size, can be applied on the fly to any instance size in the instance family.

It can be very tricky to track the actual cost of an RI in any given billing period. The AWS Cost and Usage report uses the following fields to give as clear a picture as possible of RI costs:

In addition to the effective RI costs incurred, the AWS Cost and Usage report also shows RI capacity that has not been used yet during the month or, in the case of the final invoice, was not used during the monthly billing period.

An organization can consolidate billing across all its AWS accounts into a single invoice and thus better leverage volume pricing tiers and RI discounts. The master account pays for all the charges aggregated by the linked member accounts, but each member account also gets its own bill for showback or chargeback purposes.

When billing is consolidated, the AWS Cost and Usage report uses blended rates (i.e., the averaged rates of the RIs and the on-demand instances used by all the member accounts). In the Line Item details, this will be shown in the following two fields:

Stay tuned next week for the second part of this series where we explore the usage of management tools that can help you take control of your AWS bill.

As an AWS Advanced Consulting Partner, Media Temple can help you get the most from your AWS cloud.Reach out anytime.

More here:
Taking Control of Your AWS Bill - The Media Temple Blog

San Francisco, California (November 25, 2019) Kindred Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: KIN), a biopharmaceutical company focused on saving and improving the lives of pets, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations Center for Veterinary Medicine has approved Zimeta (dipyrone injection) for the control of pyrexia in horses.

Pyrexia, or fever, is associated with a number of underlying diseases and can result in significant negative outcomes, including dehydration, laminitis, muscle wasting, weight loss, and in some cases death. Among performance horses, fever can also lead to loss of training and competition days. There are more than eight million horses in the United States, and over one million are seen by a veterinarian for fever annually.

Zimeta is the first and only FDA-approved medication for the control of pyrexia (fever) in horses.

The equine community has been eagerly anticipating an FDA-approved safe and effective product to control fever in horses, said Denise Bevers, President and COO of KindredBio. Equine pyrexia is an attractive market for KindredBio, with high unmet medical need and a commitment to treat. This second KindredBio commercial product was developed in five years and at a cost of $5 million, consistent with our business model. It positions KindredBio as a key player in the equine community as we advance a pipeline of promising drug candidates for horses.

Zimeta, which is classified as a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, targets fever centrally in the brain, where it originates. In a clinical study, Zimeta demonstrated rapid and effective fever reduction in horses with naturally occurring fever. The most common cause of fever in horses is respiratory disease, both viral and bacterial, but fever also can occur with other infections or inflammation of any body system. Zimeta is administered intravenously at 30 mg/kg once or twice daily, at 12-hour intervals, for up to three days. The overall number of doses and duration of treatment is dependent on the response observed (fever reduction). Zimeta may be re-administered based on recurrence of fever for up to three days.

KindredBio is proud to be a member of the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) Educational and Media Partners Program. The program represents industry-leading corporations, media outlets, and industry organizations dedicated to providing resources and education through AAEP to equine veterinarians and horse owners to improve the health and welfare of the horse. Nearly 9,300 veterinarians and veterinary students across more than 60 countries are members of the AAEP.

###

Important Safety Information

ZimetaTM(dipyrone injection) should not be used more frequently than every 12 hours. For use in horses only.Do not use in horses with a hypersensitivity to dipyrone, horses intended for human consumption or any food producing animals, including lactating dairy animals. Not for use in humans, avoid contact with skin and keep out of reach of children.Take care to avoid accidental self-injection and use routine precautions when handling and using loaded syringes. Prior to use, horses should undergo a thorough history and physical examination by a veterinarian.Monitor for signs of abnormal bleeding and use caution in horses at risk for hemorrhage.Concurrent use with other NSAIDs, corticosteroids and drugs associated with kidney toxicity, should be avoided.As a class, NSAIDs may be associated with gastrointestinal, kidney, and liver toxicity. The most common adverse reactions observed during clinical trials were elevated glucose conversion enzymes, decreased blood protein, and gastric ulcers. Please see the fullPrescribing Information.

Mirataz(mirtazapine transdermal ointment) is for topical use in cats only under veterinary supervision. Do not use in cats with a known hypersensitivity to mirtazapine or any of the excipients or in cats treated with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs). Not for human use. Keep out of reach of children. Wear gloves to apply and wash hands after. Avoid contact with treated cat for 2 hours following application. The most common adverse reactions include application site reactions, behavioral abnormalities (vocalization and hyperactivity) and vomiting. Please see the fullPrescribing Information.

About Kindred Biosciences

Kindred Biosciences is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on saving and improving the lives of pets. Its mission is to bring to pets the same kinds of safe and effective medicines that human family members enjoy. The companys strategy is to identify compounds and targets that have already demonstrated safety and efficacy in humans and to develop therapeutics based on these validated compounds and targets for dogs, cats and horses. KindredBio has a deep pipeline of novel drugs and biologics in development across many therapeutic classes. The company has two approved drugs, namelyMirataz(mirtazapine transdermal ointment) for the management of weight loss in cats andZimeta(dipyrone injection) for the control of fever in horses.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements contained in this press release that do not relate to matters of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, statements regarding our expectations about the trials, regulatory approval, manufacturing, distribution and commercialization of our current and future product candidates, and statements regarding our anticipated revenues, expenses, margins, profits and use of cash.

These forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations. These statements are not promises or guarantees, but involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results to be materially different from any future results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following: our limited operating history and expectations of losses for the foreseeable future; the absence of significant revenue from our products and our product candidates for the foreseeable future; the likelihood that our revenue will vary from quarter to quarter; our potential inability to obtain any necessary additional financing; our substantial dependence on the success of our products and our lead product candidates which may not be successfully commercialized even if they are approved for marketing; the effect of competition; our potential inability to obtain regulatory approval for our existing or future product candidates; our dependence on third parties to conduct some of our development activities; our dependence upon third-party manufacturers for supplies of our products and our product candidates; uncertainties regarding the outcomes of trials regarding our product candidates; our potential failure to attract and retain senior management and key scientific personnel; uncertainty about our ability to develop a satisfactory sales organization; our significant costs of operating as a public company; our potential inability to obtain and maintain patent protection and other intellectual property protection for our products and our product candidates; potential claims by third parties alleging our infringement of their patents and other intellectual property rights; our potential failure to comply with regulatory requirements, which are subject to change on an ongoing basis; the potential volatility of our stock price; and the significant control over our business by our principal stockholders and management.

For a further description of these risks and other risks that we face, please see the risk factors described in our filings with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission(theSEC), including the risk factors discussed under the caption Risk Factors in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and any subsequent updates that may be contained in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with theSEC. As a result of the risks described above and in our filings with theSEC, actual results may differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements made in this press release. Forward-looking statements contained in this press release speak only as of the date of this press release and we undertake no obligation to update or revise these statements, except as may be required by law.

Follow this link:
Kindred Biosciences Receives FDA Approval of Zimeta (dipyrone injection) for the Control of Pyrexia in Horses - TheHorse.com

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is asking its more than 160,000 members to speak out against two New Jersey bills that could negatively affect independent small-business truckers.

On Monday, Nov. 25, OOIDA issued a Call to Action to its members, requesting that they write or call the lawmakers who are pushing for the legislation in New Jersey.

The bills, S4204 and A5936, would enact the ABC test, which considers all workers to be employees unless the hiring business demonstrates that all of these factors are established:

A. That the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.

B. That the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entitys business.

C. That the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

This past September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law AB5, which codifies the California Supreme Courts decision to establish the ABC test. The law, which is set to go into effect Jan. 1, is not exclusive to the trucking industry.

Opponents in the trucking industry have said that the B factor of the test could spell the end of the leased owner-operator model in the state. Some owner-operators in California have already reported to OOIDA that their motor carriers have said they will either need to sell their trucks and become an employee or relocate to another state.

After being unable to receive clear answers from officials in either state about how the legislation would affect owner-operators, OOIDA spoke out last week against the efforts in California and New Jersey.

We have attempted to get answers, any answers from officials in California regarding their vision and enforcement on AB5. No one has any, OOIDA President and CEO Todd Spencer said. Absent any sort of direction or credible information, California should not allow AB5 to go into effect in January.

With Californias law headed to court, OOIDA said New Jersey should not pass similar legislation.

Its apparent with the confusion in California that no state needs to move forward on overly broad legislation targeting independent contractors until lawmakers can articulate what any changes to current law would be, Spencer said.

OOIDA also sent a letter to New Jersey lawmakers to state its concerns.

Costly and lengthy litigation is likely a foregone conclusion absent significant changes in the states laws and regulations that deal with independent truckers, OOIDA wrote.

OOIDA wants its members to contact the New Jersey lawmakers as well.

New Jersey State Sen. Stephen Sweeney, State Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo and State Assemblyman Joseph Egan are leading this misguided legislative effort, OOIDA wrote in its Call to Action. Were asking all of our members not just those who reside in New Jersey to call or email each of their offices and let them know how you feel about this.

Contact information for the lawmakers is included in the Call to Action.

Read more from the original source:
OOIDA issues Call to Action against worker classification bills - Land Line - Land Line Media