Mediaboss Marketing

Facebook has fundamentally changed how people communicate with each other and brought communities together online and created communities where none previously existed. In this, it has played a progressive role. However, the increasing negative aspects of the growing Metaverse causes much concern.

Addictive behaviour and dependency. Like others Im sure, my day would often begin with a look at emails and social media with increasing amounts of time spent on Facebook. You are encouraged to scroll and scroll and scroll. Click and click and click. A search for one thing always difficult on Facebook quite often led to getting embroiled in something else. The Facebook algorithm is like a glue that keeps you scrolling and clicking, it is demanding of your time. Like playing different levels on a computer game, theres always something else you are encouraged to look at in this aspect, Facebook is very addictive to some. Metas sojourn into every aspect of our lives feeds that addiction whether you are looking at lifestyle issues, community issues or news, you are encouraged to find it on Facebook and stick with the network. You slowly become dependent on this Facebook diet of content.

Demands on Time: If you are an Admin on Facebook through its pages, private or public groups, then the management of each has become increasingly complex. More time on the social network is demanded to administer the various tools and memberships. Managing members brings its own problems. In small groups where you know the members, there is a civil engagement that generally follows. But in larger groups with lots of members that are unknown to you, then membership issues and breaking the rules of engagement can be another cause of time having to be spent on the network. Before long you are spending more time on Facebook than you realise. As you spend more time on the network, then, as obvious as it sounds, you spend less time elsewhere.

Bad manners become the norm: Facebook has played a positive role in many communities by giving a voice to those that have not previously had one. And where those in power realise that they need to engage with those voices, then positive engagement can take place. Of course, sometimes those in power will feel threatened by those voices and choose not to engage blaming its only Facebook and potentially creating more division than previously existed. But as well as emboldening people to have a voice, a negative aspect is that Facebook encourages the raising of voices in an unnatural way that wouldnt happen if people were talking in a real-world situation; often taking the form of rude, argumentative and bad-mannered posts and comments. If you dont agree with something, you say so. There is no consideration of the other person making a comment.

Facebook has been likened to some as the modern equivalent of the discussion at the public bar, except of course religion and politics are certainly not barred topics. However, in a real-life situation, the clown in the corner is usually left to his or her own space; on Facebook, the clown takes centre stage. You dont agree with something? You object? You argue. The debate gets heated, unnecessary language or comments are made. Before long you are in a full-blown argument with a stranger you have never met.

Admins and moderators can help eliminate and ease tensions assuming of course they see that as their role. In some cases, the flames are fanned as a form of entertainment for others. We all like soap operas full of drama and conflict. There is much similar material on Facebook. I would argue that Facebook by its very nature gives confidence to those who seek and promote conflict and hate. This was my view even before Facebook announced recently that it was acceptable and they would not penalise those who call for the death of Russian soldiers.

A corporate project. Facebook is very clearly now a project of Meta and a tool in creating its Metaverse. At the beginning of February 2022, Meta suffered a historic market fall, wiping out over $200bn (147.5bn) of the companys stock market value and setting the record for the largest single-day trading loss for any U.S. company, ever! Facebooks daily active users also declined for the first time ever, dropping by about half a million. However, the network still boasts 2.91 billion monthlyactive users (that means that 36.8% of the worlds populationuse Facebook monthly). Meta is a massive multi-million-dollar-making enterprise. As a global and influential force for change in the world then I am one of those who, based on my experience of it, express concern about what the mega-million-dollar Meta might pose for the future? The decision to lock me out of my account in order to glean more personal information out of me via Facebook Protect thereby strengthening more ties between me and the social network and Meta is the final straw.

For the reasons above, and others, I am saying Goodbye to the social network and will look at using alternatives to it; alternatives that I hope, dont try to simply ape Facebook, but look at being more ethical.

Ray Duffill, Hedon Blog 16 March 2022.

Continued here:
Bye, Bye Facebook! Decision to leave the social network - The Hedon Blog

Other conflicts and political leaders may be less fortunate, and could be more vulnerable to disruption by deepfakes, says Sam Gregory, who works on deepfakes policy at the nonprofit Witness.

Zelenskys high profile helped Ukraines deepfake warning two weeks ago win international news coverage, and it also helped his quick response on Wednesday to spread rapidly. His prominence may also have prompted a quick response to the video from social networking companies. Meta spokesperson Aaron Simpson declined to say how it detected the video; so did YouTubes Choi. The statement provided by Twitters Kennedy credited unspecified external investigative reporting.

Not all people targeted by deepfakes will be able to react as nimbly as Zelenskyor find their repudiation so widely trusted. Ukraine was well positioned to do this, Gregory says. This is very different from other cases, where even a poorly made deepfake can create uncertainty about authenticity.

Gregory points to a video that appeared in Myanmar last year, which appeared to show a former government minister held in detention saying he provided cash and gold to the countrys former leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The military government that displaced Aung San Suu Kyi in a coup used that footage to accuse her of corruption. But in the video the former ministers face and voice were distorted, causing many journalists and citizens to suggest the clip was faked.

Technical analysis has not resolved the mystery, in part because the video is of low quality, and because the former minister and others familiar with the truth dont speak as freely or to as large an audience as Zelensky could on Wednesday. While automatic deepfake detectors could someday help combat bad actors, theyre still a work in progress.

Deepfakes are still generally used more for titillation or harassment than grand deception, especially as they become easier to create. A deepfake of Russian president Vladimir Putin circulated on Twitter this week as well, although it was identified as inauthentic from the start. The Zelensky deepfake and accompanying hacks, though, could represent a troubling new frontier. The quick and successful response to the clip highlights how, with a few tweaks and better timing, a deepfake attack could be an effective political weapon.

If this was a more professional video and had been released early on in a more successful Russian advance on Kyiv, it could have created a lot of confusion, says Samuel Bendett, who tracks Russian defense technology at the nonprofit CNA. As deepfake technology continues to get easier to access and more convincing, Zelensky is unlikely to be the last political leader targeted by fake video.

More Great WIRED Stories

See the rest here:
A Zelensky Deepfake Was Quickly Defeated. The Next One Might Not Be - WIRED

Michaela Lodlov, consultant at Wiggin LLP, a UK-based law firm that specialises in media, technology and IP, explains that new telecoms security & cybersecurity obligations caused by the ongoing conflict may result in increased compliance costs for operators.

"Since 2019 we have witnessed, as part of our detailed monitoring of the international regulatory landscape, increasing nationalisation and tight national security restrictions in the communications regulatory and wider technology space in Russia," says Lodlov.

By May 2019, the country adopted a law on Russian Internet (Runet) that laid the foundations for isolating internet traffic in Russia from the rest of the world, as evidenced by the recent blocking of certain social networks.

"This has allowed full scope filtering of the Internet content with the Russian regulator Roskomnadzor requiring all ISPs to interconnect technically with its facilities and run all traffic destined to the World Wide Web via it," adds Lodlov.

At the same time, strict requirements were put in place for pre-installed Russian software on all devices imported and sold, including PCs, laptops and handsets. By 11th March, all servers and domains were due to be transferred to the Russian zone in readiness for of the cut off from the global Internet.

"We expect that western foreign operators will now face their licences being reworked, their assets nationalised or expropriated, and their operations effectively ceased," explains Lodlov.

"Furthermore, telecommunications operators offering global or international services to Russia (or countries that may yet fall under similar international sanctions), will face challenging situations. This is especially true as they try to comply with the constantly increasing sanctions, comprising of bans on technologies and services including entities with Russian ownership or capital (where such fact may be far from obvious)."

She adds that there is also the perennial issue of which services to take down, as one circuit to one sanctioned customer may be fairly simple but taking down a common network element can be very challenging. As such, "a lot of work will be needed to coordinate network and sanctions teams in order to ensure pragmatic decisions are made".

This will require significant work on the part of "key individuals" as well as import teams who will need to adapt to and keep up to date with the increasing restrictions on the types of equipment/ technology that can be imported into the countries.

Sanctions and networking aside, Lodlov says that the home countries of large, international organisations that provide telecoms services are also likely to tighten national security and cybersecurity requirements to protect against cybercrime.

"This includes targeted attacks on critical infrastructure in these countries, the spread of fake news and the prevalence of propaganda. Tightened cyber security rules are well under way in the Western world and will intensify," she says.

This will result in additional costs in not only reinforcing critical infrastructure but also in "ensuring the administration of content mediation, filtering and blocking services that the service providers already face. We are seeing large numbers of new rules in this regard appearing across multiple jurisdictions".

Interestingly, Lodlov points to subsea cables as an area of particular concern describing it as "essential communication pathways from the East to the West and especially between Europe and Northern America".

In light of these repercussions, its unsurprising to learn that new compliance rules and legislation are likely to come about as a result of these threats.

Firstly, Lodlov says that eome countries that were traditionally very open to the global economy, like the UK, the Netherlands or Denmark, recently introduced government scrutiny of foreign direct investment in strategic infrastructure sectors like communications networks & services, data centres or infrastructure for digital and cloud services.

"This will, in our view, gain momentum and more European countries will follow suit," she says. "We also expect that there will be further scrutiny and new rules regarding anonymous use of services and many jurisdictions which currently do not have strict rules on customer or SIM registrations will introduce these in some shape or form."

There is also scope for similar discussions in the areas of social networks, particularly regarding fake accounts, sponsored by state terrorism or aimed at incentivising hatred or harmful content.

Data sovereignty is also likely to be affected, with Lodlov having seen an increasing trend of data localisation in Russia and other countries in the region over the last two years.

"This is likely to continue, with more countries imposing strict data localisation rules not only for the communications sector but for wider personal data processing requirements," she adds.

"We expect to see more national versions of the global Internet as seen in other regions, like the Middle East or China, where a significant portion of information & content is either blocked or filtered."

For its part, she says that Russia has already introduced full-scope data sovereignty for all communications sector data and any personal data processing.

If data sovereignty is likely to become more prevalent, then countries and jurisdictions that are governed by GDPR, UK GDPR regime or similar regimes, "will impose absolute restrictions on data transfers to jurisdictions like Russia. This will increase the geopolitical isolation and economic sanctions put on the nation," Lodlov says.

The downside to this as she points out, is that data protection rules in different countries are likely to become more "incompatible" and "giving rise to new partitioning in the digital space".

What is further concerning is that this could lead to technical and other incompatibility issues regarding standards "which would break the current globalised world into nationsal or regional silos limiting the scope for big data, data economy or open data initiatives".

With a plethora of clients and partners across the TMT space, Lodlov says that the firm has already begun seeing a number of the aforementioned topics being discussed as areas of concern, indicating that many are preparing for what likely to come.

Of the ones not previously mentioned these include, greater restrictions on network service offerings requiring more filtering and blocking as well as more foreign direct investment rules.

Regulation failing to keep pace with new technologies leading to ever increasing rules on enterprise customers, which are more customer centric and the expansion of some of those rules to OTT providers but little consistency on some.

And an ever more patchwork quilt of regulation requiring hugely detailed analysis to allow any cross-border application and risk of more fines for any cross jurisdictional service offering.

Read more:
Telecoms security and the Russia-Ukraine crisis - Capacity Media

By Tim Hyde, Founder and Director of Social Media Marketing Agency, TWH Media

On October 28, 2021, Mark Zuckerberg wrote a founders letter to outline the brands decision to change its name to Meta, suggesting this phase as being the beginning of the next chapter for the internet. He went on to say:

The metaverse is the next frontier in connecting people, just like social networking was when we got started,

Facebook has made this move to pursue opportunities in the virtual world of the metaverse.

Adidas also joined the growing ranks of those entering the metaverse, releasing a one-of-a-kind token that functions similarly to an NFT, while Nike and Roblox collaborated on virtual realm, Nikeland, marking their first step into this new space.

And these are not the only big brands to see potential in this rapidly emerging technology, and how it could permanently change the way we network, shop and do business.

To most of us, Facebook is seen as a social media company, an almost iconic social media brand, but things are changing and while no-one is entirely sure exactly what the metaverse will look like, the rise of a new iteration of the Internet, Web 3.0, has meant social media is changing, and many of the original pioneers of social media are already moving into this exciting new space, and applying those hard-won lessons to these new technologies.

Having spent my entire career immersed in the world of social media, using these platforms to maximise the success and growth of businesses, it is fascinating to see how colleagues, associates and industry leaders from across the world have begun investing in both the metaverse and Web 3.0 ventures, and are already seeing seven figure returns.

Social Media is changing

Most of us consider social media as ubiquitous, but there was a time when many businesses did not view it as something worth investing in. As technology caught up and revealed huge opportunities in eCommerce, the value of a social media presence quickly became apparent, and these companies found themselves 10 steps behind their competitors I predict this will be the case with the metaverse and Web 3.0.

Those that took the plunge into social media when it was still an emerging technology were able to build up hugely influential followings as well as create powerful brands . We are seeing the same thing happen as entrepreneurs are using the infrastructure of Web 3.0 to create and invest in emerging metaverse platforms.

Who is doing what?

We have already seen the explosion in cryptocurrency platforms, with Jack Dorseys financial services company, Square, investing $50 million into Bitcoin, and Tesla following suit with an investment of over $1.3 billion. Similarly, non-fungible tokens [NFTs] are rich in opportunities for businesses and investors beyond simply trading digital artworks and collectibles.

While Facebooks name change may have bought mainstream attention to the possibilities of the metaverse, the road is already being paved by many big names who first cut their teeth on social media.

Gary Vaynerchuk, CEO of VaynerMedia, identified the Internet as a land-grab opportunity and opened one of the first eCommerce platforms in the late 90s. He essentially grew with social media, becoming a hugely prolific and influential name within the industry, and has been investing in the Metaverse for the past two years, creating and developing Vee Friends, an NFT brand company, as well as other Web 3.0 initiatives.

Other early-adopters of social media, such as Social Chain co-founder, and youngest-ever investor on Dragons Den, Steven Bartlett, has also begun investing in a number of Web 3.0 companies, while social media pioneer Cathal Berragan moved from Social Chain New York to a Web 3.0 business in London.

While these are just a handful of names, all are using their significant social media followings and the skills they learnt on those platforms to make the transition into this new space.

Early social media adopters have the andvantage

With Web 3.0 and the metaverse poised as the successor to the current iteration of the Internet, it is those trailblazers who were able to adapt their mindset and take a leap into social media who have the greatest advantage in making the next move into the metaverse.

They already have great experience in cultivating a following and building a community and are able to bring that community on board with them into new ventures, such as those who started off running meme accounts on platforms like Twitter and transitioned to buying and creating NFTs.

The ability to communicate your message clearly on emerging platforms is something that early adopters of social media have already had much experience in, and crucially, are able to hit the relevant tone of voice as well as iterating their content style to keep and engage their audience. People that were willing to take a risk by investing their time into new platforms such as TikTok or Snapchat, staking their claim in these new spaces, and it is these people who are now reaping the benefits of being at the frontier of the metaverse.

View post:
Facebook became Meta Are we all about to jump in to the Metaverse? - Global Banking And Finance Review

How free is the internet? These days, it comes down to where you live. Many countries crack down on our online freedoms by restricting access to certain websites and services or prosecuting those who share anti-governmental rhetoric.

According to the 2021 Freedom House Freedom on the Net index, 75% of all internet users live in countries where individuals have been arrested or imprisoned for posting content on political, social, or religious issues. At least 55 countries have investigated, arrested, or convicted people for their social media posts.

The report assessed 70 countries around the world and assigned them a score between 0 and 100; the higher the number, the more free a country's internet is. China scored only a 10, while Iran and Myanmar each failed to reach 20. Cuba, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, and United Arab Emirates rounded out the bottom 10 countries.

It's also worth noting that both sides of the current Russo-Ukrainian War scored poorly on the index. Russia scored 30 pointsplacing the country in 11th place on the listjust as social media sites have been blocked in response to US sanctions. But Ukraine was awarded just 62 points, marking it a partially free country only.

The Freedom House assessed 88% of internet users around the world and found that 39% were not freemostly in Asia and the Middle Eastwhile 28% were only partially freeCentral and South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and Ukraine. Just 21% were determined to be free; these live mainly in the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, and Australia.

Of the countries that scored highest the last year, Iceland was at the top with 96 points. Estonia was close behind with 94 points, and then Canada, Costa Rica, and Taiwan followed with scores in the 80s. The United States scored 75 points, likely because it has prosecuted people for what they wrote on Twitter.

Read the original post:
China, Russia Among the Most Internet-Restrictive Countries in the World - PCMag India