Mediaboss Marketing

January 24, 2017 by Jessica Sieff Tim Weninger spent five months monitoring new posts on Reddit -- 93,019 posts in all -- and randomly, regardless of content, assigned either an up-vote, down-vote or no vote (as a control) to each post. Credit: Barbara Johnston/University of Notre Dame

When Tim Weninger conducted two large-scale experiments on Reddit - otherwise known as "the front page of the internet" - back in 2014, the goal was to better understand the ripple effects of malicious voting behavior and the impact on what users see and share online.

One could argue the study couldn't be more timely.

Redditso popular it received 234 million unique visitors last September, according to the siteaggregates user-generated content that is then rated through a voting structure. Users can vote positively (up-vote) or negatively (down-vote) on what they see, which determines the prominence of social posts on Reddit's page. Weninger's results, recently published in the Association for Computer Machinery journal, Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, provide insight into how a single up/down vote can influence what content users see on the site, which has been known to push viral content into the broader social mediasphere and even mainstream news.

"Most people don't vote on Reddit. But those that do become the content editors - that's essentially what they are - and they're the ones who are responsible for what's trending on the site," said Weninger, assistant professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Notre Dame. "Anyone can vote on social media, so it's relatively easy for handful of bad actors to manipulate the news and opinions and commentary that you see in social media."

For the study Weninger and Maria Glenski, a graduate student in the department of computer science and engineering, spent five months monitoring new posts on Reddit - 93,019 posts in all - and randomly, regardless of content, assigned either an up-vote, down-vote or no vote (as a control) to each post. Posts receiving an up-vote ended up with a significantly higher final score than posts with no vote, and posts assigned a down-vote resulted in a significantly lower score. "Moreover, the posts that we up-voted were 24 percent more likely to reach the front page than those that we did not up-vote," said Weninger.

Content on the site, be it news, photos or video, is completely user-generated, but Reddit differs from other sites such as Facebook or Twitter, as it is not a social network. "You're not seeing what your friends care about," said Weninger. "You're seeing the aggregate opinion of everyone on Reddit." Or, as previously noted, the aggregate opinion of those who actually vote, which Weninger said is a relatively small percentage of Reddit's thousands of users. Votes from the subset of users who choose to vote on what they like or don't like, contribute to the overall score for each post that is calculated by subtracting down-votes from up-votesand those scores determine which content makes it to the top of the site's main page and subreddit pages.

"Media is shifting," he said. "We're moving away from a dozen editors at major networks to a million editors at home on their cell phone. It's important to remember that what's trending on social media is derived from only those who vote, and may not represent the opinions of the actual, broader population."

Weninger continues to measure the intersection and impact of human behavior in social media.

"It is critical that we understand the dynamics of how social rating systems curate the media that we all see and hear in our daily lives," he said. "That, to me, is essential. I can't think of anything more important."

Explore further: Reddit launches Upvoted, a stand-alone site for original content

More information: Rating Effects on Social News Posts and Comments, arXiv:1606.06140 [cs.SI] arxiv.org/abs/1606.06140v1

Online community Reddit on Tuesday launched Upvoted, a stand-alone website to house original content inspired by or related to posts from the expansive online forum.

A month after announcing new guidelines, Reddit removed five groups that it said harassed people.

How trustworthy is the social information on the internet? Do web-based product ratings, for instance, lead to unbiased, reliable and hence useful information? LMU's Petri Niemel has now carried out a study to answer these ...

(AP)Social-networking and news site Reddit says it will remove photos, videos and links with explicit content if the person in the image hasn't given permission for it to be posted.

(Phys.org) Marketers and other new media workers hoping for traffic payoffs will want to study a paper by three Stanford University scientists who have pulled apart the nature of Reddit posts to determine what, beyond ...

Some of the globe's biggest users of social media, Brazilians snap selfies at the beach, at soccer matches, at the gym, in maternity wards and even inside the dens of drug-dealing gangs.

When Tim Weninger conducted two large-scale experiments on Reddit - otherwise known as "the front page of the internet" - back in 2014, the goal was to better understand the ripple effects of malicious voting behavior and ...

They started with striped bass. Over a two-year period the researchers went through about 50 bass, puncturing or fracturing hundreds of fish scales under the microscope, to try to understand their properties and mechanics ...

Skirted on all sides by snow-clad pine forests, Latvia's remote Lake Ninieris would be the perfect picture of winter tranquilitywere it not for the huge drone buzzing like a swarm of angry bees as it zooms above the solid ...

When Singapore pulls the plug on its 2G mobile phone network this year, thousands of people could be stuck without a signaldigital have-nots left behind by the relentless march of technology.

Evangelists for driverless cars see a bright future coming down the road: thousands of lives saved, countless driving hours freed up, cityscapes transformed with traffic jams vanquished.

A Northwestern University team developed a new computational model that performs at human levels on a standard intelligence test. This work is an important step toward making artificial intelligence systems that see and understand ...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Visit link:
Your (social media) votes matter - Phys.Org

Bernie Ecclestone's reign as Formula One supremo is over after Liberty Media announced its takeover of and his replacement as chief executive in Chase Carey.

Ecclestone will not move into an ambassadorial role of chairman emeritus after 40 years in charge of the sport.

Last week, in the week of the sport's governing body approving the sale of its commercial rights to Liberty Media, Ecclestone cast doubt over his role as chief executive.

And although there has been no word from Liberty about the 86-year-old so far, the man himself has said his time is up.

In quotes carried by German publication Auto, Motor and Sport, Ecclestone said: "I was deposed today. This is official, I do not run the company any more."

A statement from Ecclestone on Formula1.com said: Im proud of the business that I built over the last 40 years and all that I have achieved with Formula 1, and would like to thank all of the promoters, teams, sponsors and television companies that I have worked with.

"Im very pleased that the business has been acquired by Liberty and that it intends to invest in the future of F1. I am sure that Chase will execute his role in a way that will benefit the sport.

Reigning world champion Nico Rosberg has congratulated the veteran F1 chief for his job and wished his replacement, American Carey, all the best.

"Bernie, mega job! But a change has been overdue. Mr. Carey, all the best in making our sport awesome again," tweeted the newly-retired German.

Ecclestone, who turns 87 in October, has ruled Formula One for 40 years and been involved in elite motorsport for many more.

President and CEO of Liberty Media Corporation Greg Maffei thanked Ecclestone "for his tremendous success in building this remarkable global sport.

American Chase Carey, the 21st Century Fox vice chairman, was installed as the new Formula One chairman when Liberty agreed to take control from private equity firm CVC Capital Partners last September.

In a statement today, he said: "F1 has huge potential with multiple untapped opportunities. I have enjoyed hearing from the fans, teams, FIA, promoters and sponsors on their ideas and hopes for the sport.

"We will work with all of these partners to enhance the racing experience and add new dimensions to the sport and we look forward to sharing these plans overtime.

I would like to recognise and thank Bernie for his leadership over the decades. The sport is what it is today because of him and the talented team of executives he has led, and he will always be part of the F1 family.

"Bernies role as Chairman Emeritus befits his tremendous contribution to the sport and I am grateful for his continued insight and guidance as we build F1 for long-term success and the enjoyment of all those involved.

When Liberty bought an 18.7 per cent stake from CVC in September, Ecclestone said the prospective new owners wanted him to stay on as chief executive for three years.

"That is what they asked for," Ecclestone added. "In fact we are going to try to put together people that can look after all the things I have been trying to find people to do, which is the sponsorship and things like that.

"As I said, let's see how we are going to operate."

poll loading

YES NO

See the original post here:
Bernie Ecclestone's Formula One reign over after 40 years as Liberty Media confirm 6billion takeover - Mirror.co.uk

Americans now find themselves in day fourof a real-world experiment: What happens when an elected official with an authoritarian bent and a long-nurtured hatred of media criticism collides with a free press backed by strong democratic institutions?

During the first White House press conference of the new administration, U.S. President Donald Trumps characteristic hostility towards the media officially transformed from a divisive campaign strategy into a government demand for censorship. On Jan. 21, new White House press secretary Sean Spicer fiercely denounced the media for accurately reporting the size of the crowd at Trumps inauguration ceremony the previous day. Spicer offered several factually incorrect statements to back up his claim that Jan. 21 saw the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration. He offered a criticism of Senate Democrats as what news outlets should be writing and covering, then implied that the White House would punish outlets for similar instances of what he called deliberately false reporting in the future.

I have spent years covering the media landscape in China, an illiberal one-party state with notorious and worsening censorship. In Spicers hostile remarks, I immediately recognized what I have come to know very well an explicit government demand for media censorship. I was far from alone in my alarm. The New York Times reported that the news media world found itself in a state of shock after the days remarks. Social media teemed with jokes at Spicers expense, juxtaposing his photo with outlandish claims like the world is flat.

During Jan. 23s press conference, however, Spicer took a less combative tone. His remarks were largely upbeat rather than angry, he accepted media questions from a wide range of media outlets, and he assured journalists that he would never knowingly make false statements, though he qualified that by saying that I think sometimes we can disagree with the facts. He reiterated his previous assertion that the media needed to be kept accountable when it makes factual errors a reasonable request, when not couched as a threat and that some kinds of coverage are harmful to the unity of the country.

Crowd size is an oddly small hill for ones credibility to die on, and Trumps treatment of the issue says much about how his relationship with the media may develop over the course of his presidency. Trump has an image problem. He wishes to be seen as riding a wave of popular support; he regularly refers to his successful campaign as a movement, and in Jan. 21 remarks at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginiastated that between one million and 1.5 million people attended his inauguration, which would be close to the historic number of attendees at former president Barack Obamas inauguration in 2009. But in reality, he assumed office as the most unpopular incoming president in recent history. He also lost the popular voteby over 2.8 million votes.

So when numerous media outlets poked a hole in his self-promoting narrative by publishing countervailing statistics and photos, Trump reacted not by conceding his error but by using his power as president to try to stifle press freedom. His press secretarys three-prong attempt at media control portray news outlets as untrustworthy, issue directives for coverage, and threaten those who disobey takes a page straight out of the Chinese Communist Partys playbook. Spicers subsequent toning down of the rhetoric indicates that the Trump administration will have to localize this playbook for it to be effective in a democratic country with a powerful constitution; or, perhaps, that they will make no such attack at all. The uncertainty of the administrations intent has set the media, and somepolitical scientists, on edge.

To some degree, clashing with the press is par for the course for governments and leaders around the world. But the authoritarian government in Beijing has shown how to delegitimize those outlets it doesnt control, by presenting them as biased, unreliable, or unfair.

Chinese views of western media outlets offer an excellent case study. The New York Times, the BBC, the Economist, and similar outlets are of course free to print coverage that is critical of Chinese government policies; they are neither funded by Beijing, like many major outlets in China, nor are they subject to most of its levers of influence and intimidation. But to many Chinese, the very term Western media is nearly synonymous with anti-China bias. They are likely to view reports of perspectives exclusive to foreign media outlets with a high degree of skepticism, or even outright disdain. This is no accident. Rather, it is the result of a remarkably successful years-long propaganda campaign by Chinese government and party authorities to delegitimize the news outlets whose content it cannot directly control. One platform it has used to do so is its press briefings. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokespeople such as Hua Chunying regularly excoriate Western media for being unprofessional, arrogant, and self-righteous. Chinese state media reports and press briefings also regularly cast doubt on or directly contradict the information found in foreign media reports.

That should sound familiar. Trump has used this very strategy to convince his supporters that the liberal media or mainstream media cannot be trusted. These terms are not objective designations Fox News, the most widely watched news network in the United States, is not liberal, yet should surely be considered mainstream but rather indicate which outlets print Trumps desired coverage.

It now appears that Trumps campaign tactics are White House strategy. In his very first appearance, Spicer called the offending reports on inauguration crowd size egregious, irresponsible and reckless, and shameful and wrong, and also accused the press of intentionally manipulating information as well as sowing division about tweets and false narratives. Trump, speaking at the CIA headquarters on Jan. 21, referred to the media as among the most dishonest human beings on earth.

On Jan. 23, Spicer was less hostile, but remained unapologetic for unleashing anger on a press that reported correctly. He did not repeat the debunked claim that Trumps inauguration had higher attendance than Obamas, stating that the statistics he provided came from an outside agency, and that it wasnt like we made them up out of thin air. He painted a picture of honest mistakes rather than intentional manipulation, saying, There are times when you guys tweet something out or write a story and publish a correction, but that doesnt mean you were deliberately trying to deceive readers, does it? Spicers reaction demonstrated that while he wasnt unresponsive to the press, he would continue to defend statements by Trump that were simply untrue.

The other key element of Beijing-style information control is to tell malleable outlets what to say. Beijing does this not by vetting every word in every outlet. Instead, Chinese authorities send out news directives to the press on a nearly daily basis, ordering them to alter headlines, cover certain events with a more positive tone, or delete other coverage entirely, usually focusing on issues it feels goes to the heart of its legitimacy like President Xis image, protests in its restive periphery, or criticism of late party leader Mao Zedong, a founder of the Peoples Republic. News agencies that step out of line may be fined or even shuttered; offending journalists may be fired. Authorities exercise an even tighter grip on state-run media outlets, such as party mouthpiece Peoples Daily and state news agency Xinhua, which serve as nationally influential vessels for state propaganda. Since Chinese President Xi Jinpings consolidation of power after he took office in late 2012, state-run media have even been asked essentially to swear an oath of loyalty.

Of course, Trump cannot close newspapers or jail journalists by fiat. And with the exception of Voice of America, which almost exclusively targets foreign audiences, the United States also does not have a state-funded media sector readily waiting to disseminate government messages.

But that didnt prevent Spicer from issuing what sounded likeveiled threats. He appeared to suggest that the Trump administration could deny access to transgressors or simply circumvent them. Were going to hold the press accountable, as well, said Spicer near the end of his Jan. 21 press conference. His second appearance was less accusatory, emphasizing that accountability between government and press should be a two-way street. But the underlying distrust of the media and the hazy relationship with facts remained its unclear, for example, why it is acceptable to disagree with facts, as Spicer claimed.

The president could choose to only give interviews to outlets that promise him positive coverage. Big interviews mean big readership; its not hard to imagine a struggling outlet making that kind of compromise. I think theyre going to pay a big price, remarked Trump at Langley on Jan. 21, referring to the media that had crossed him.

Its unlikely that the United States will resemble Beijing in 2020. But press freedoms can deteriorate even in democratic countries; take Japan. After hawkish Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took office in December 2012, his administration attacked major media outlets for what they saw as biased news coverage. News organizations began to mute such coverage and to remove outspoken anchors in what appears to endemic self-censorship. The passage of a state secrecy law in 2013 may have contributed to a sense of vulnerability among journalists and government whistleblowers. In 2016, Japan fell to a lowly 72 in a global ranking of press freedom published by Reporters Without Borders, a drop from its previous ranking at 61.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also saw the first White House press conference for what it really was. It is shameful that on the first full day of this Administration, we have ominous suggestions of possible government censorship, read the statement, which was posted to the ACLU National Twitter account on Jan. 21. This will be a fight the Trump administration will most certainly lose.

But no country achieves and maintains press freedom without a fight; it would be a mistake to assume that Spicers attacks will have no effect. The question is how much damage can be done.

Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

View post:
White House Echoes Beijing in Treatment of US Press - Foreign Policy (blog)

Scott Pruitt is nominated to head the Environmental Protection Agency

Without Scott Pruitt on the ground at the Environmental Protection Agency to provide the appropriate set of alternative facts, theres a chance someone at the EPA might reveal an actual fact. AndDonald Trump ishaving none of that.

And while the flow of information out of the EPA has been locked down, its far more than press releases that have ceased to flow.

EPA staff has been instructed to freeze all its grants an extensive program that includes funding for research, redevelopment of former industrial sites, air quality monitoring and education, among other things and told not to discuss this order with anyone outside the agency, according to a Hill source with knowledge of the situation.

These grants powereverything from sampling pollution around Superfund sites to community recycling programs and environmental education programs used in schools. The grant lockdownfollows reports that Trump intends to cut $815 million from the EPAs budget,destroying not only the ability to fund research, but to enforce existing standards.

Requests for commentfrom the EPA drew noresponse. Of course.

Link:
EPA under a gag order as Trump team shuts down grants, press communication - Daily Kos

5438650

First days of Trump presidency have been marked by escalating feud between the administration and establishment media. Americans expected the inauguration coverage that celebrates democratic process, peaceful transition of power, breath and scope of the incoming administrations undertaking, instead, the establishment media engaged in an array of vicious attacks ranging from fake news and modified coverage to a CNN-run segment that may be construed as inciting action harmful to elected officials. In the end, the worldwide audiences have been deprived of opportunity to savor this historic moment in American history by the militant elite media virtually taking meaning of peaceful out of the peaceful transition of power, while acting incensed when publicly scourged by the administration for journalistic malpractice and dishonest coverage of events.

Perhaps, the most harmful salvo came on the first day of the Trump administration. As the presidential visit to CIA headquarters was wrapping up, a number of establishment media networks attempted to perpetuate an imaginary of a chasm that allegedly exists between President Trump and the intelligence community sworn to serve his office. Even Obamas political appointee Brennan could not help himself and stepped into the spotlight to chide President Trump for openly criticizing the establishment leadership for poor workmanship, mismanagement and politicization of federal agencies, pursuit of favors at the expense of work ethics and truth.

In an interview with NBC News Andrea Mitchell, a former aide to John Brennan at the CIA said: Former CIA Director Brennan is deeply saddened and angered at Donald Trumps despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of CIAs Memorial Wall of Agency heroes. Brennan, Shapiro said, believes Trump should be ashamed of himself.

What the establishment media ignored to mention is that only recently some 50 American spies said their war-intelligence was cooked on its way to the White House to bring it in the sink with Mr Obamas official narrative. Intelligence analysts complaints even prompted the Pentagons inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. We will be well served by the reminder that flawed intelligence cited by the Bush administration helped political establishment to make the case for invading Iraq nearly 14 years ago at a great expenditure in blood and treasure, and to the detriment of our international repute. Today we can posit that the causality in failed Middle Eastern and Central European policies, metastasis of radical Islamist terrorism, mass populations-displacements over the past decade all tied to intelligence communitys leadership systemic failure to deliver truthful and compelling analysis.

Spirited political discourse and collective action are Americas time-honored way for challenger to enter the polity as well as for the political establishment to defend its stay in power and access to scarce economic resources. However, collective action by the establishment controlled media proactive in harming American presidency is the new phenomenon in Americas political landscape.

The American public for nearly decade was subject to open propaganda and misinformation by the handful of elite media networks engaged to advance political and economic interests of the establishment class. Subordinate to anti-Trump establishment elites, perpetrators of the intrastate information and ideological warfare engaged in dissemination of media reports supportive of the political establishment-friendly new-liberal policies and event-prone narratives created by the virulent leftist vector. This media operators calculus is clearly centered on forcing Trump administration to adopt failed policies of the past, denied by the majority electorate. Such misinformation efforts have been exemplified by the 2011-Benghazi event coverage and talking points designed to cover up the inept executive management at the state department, and politics instead of human-life centered administration response; allegations of Russian influence in presidential election designed to delegitimize president Trump; assertions of impending deleterious effect of president Trump policies on economic continuity of the economy; allegations of internecine racial and religious radicalism exhibited by Trump administration; even reports of a Martin Luther King Jr. bust disappearing from the oval office having potential to reignite racial tensions on the day when leftist and anarchists attempted to rain havoc on the streets of America.

Just how do promulgators of fallacies expect to get away with their concerted efforts to dupe Americans and damage a presidency?

In an effort to delegitimize president Trump, the establishment media strategies of misinformation employ armed propaganda and the speed strategy effectively exploit speed versus accuracy dilemma. The speed strategy allows the media to control operational tempo, seize the initiative and place Trump administration in a position of weakness in constant reactionary state. The office of the president is bound by obligation to deploy message with speed is impeded by the time required to access information with accuracy; speed sacrifices accuracy as we have seen in some of Trumps tweets. The anti-Trump media establishment on the other hand become adept at exploiting this weakness in its own asymmetric incursions against its own domestic audiences as exemplified by the aforementioned examples of Benghazi event, Russian hacking myth, MLK bust-controversy. In all cases the elite establishment media and their allies dont bind themselves by moral obligations to present truthful account of events; they are hindered by hidden agendas and conveniently incompetent intelligence sourcing. They use new-liberal media networks in barrages of armed propaganda attacks to influence rather than in attempt to inform audiences, catching Trump administration in constant reactive cycle of trying to counteract every piece of misinformation further drawing attention of the community and, by virtue of doing so, amplifying their own message. In their pro-active state, the establishment media quickly reacts to president Trumps message inconsistencies, actual or perceived, creating shock points, pushing the administration to tactically advantageous reactive state, in which media establishment control operational tempo, owns initiative.

The table can be turned on media personalities and their networks who are, in words of President Trump, among the most dishonest human beings on earth It will require multidimensional, jarring, broad in scope and depth of devastation measures designed to increase costs of collective action by the media willing to engage in dissemination of disinformation damaging to the office of presidency and interests of American people; encouragement of popular support for media networks whose coverage is consistently fair and balanced ready to expose hypocrisy and corruption of establishment elites; enforcement of ethical standards in media and printed journalism; and lastly, deliver on promises that President Trump gave to American people.

See the original post:
Trump's Media Wars - Daily Caller