21 January 2019

Samsung could release three variants of the Galaxy S10


According to a leaked image from Evan Blass, Samsung’s new flagship device could come in three different versions — the Samsung Galaxy S10, the Samsung Galaxy S10+ and the Samsung Galaxy S10E.

That new leak lines up with previous leaks. As you can see on the photo, the new devices don’t have a notch. They feature a hole-punch selfie camera instead. If you’re looking for the fingerprint sensor, Samsung could choose to embed it in the screen.

Just like in previous years, in addition to the main S10, there will be a bigger version of the device — the S10+. On this photo, you can see that the bigger version has two selfie cameras instead of one.

But the S10E is a new addition to the lineup. Samsung is launching a more affordable version of the S10 at the same time as the S10. The S10E features two cameras on the back instead of three for instance. I wouldn’t be surprised if the S10E had an LCD display instead of an AMOLED display as well.

Samsung plans to unveil the Galaxy S10 at an event in San Francisco on February 20. We’ll have a team on the ground to tell you more about the device.


Read Full Article

French data protection watchdog fines Google $57 million under the GDPR


The CNIL, the French data protection watchdog, has issued its first GDPR fine of $57 million (€50 million). The regulatory body claims that Google has failed to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) when new Android users set up a new phone and follow Android’s onboarding process.

Two nonprofit organizations called ‘None Of Your Business’ (noyb) and La Quadrature du Net had originally filed a complaint back in May 2018 — noyb originally filed a complaint against Google and Facebook, so let’s see what happens to Facebook next. Under the GDPR, complaints are transferred to local data protection watchdogs.

While Google’s European HQ is in Dublin, the CNIL first concluded that the team in Dublin doesn’t have the final say when it comes to data processing for new Android users — that decision probably happens in Mountain View. That’s why the investigation continued in Paris.

The CNIL then concluded that Google fails to comply with the GDPR when it comes to transparency and consent.

Let’s start with the alleged lack of transparency. “Essential information, such as the data processing purposes, the data storage periods or the categories of personal data used for the ads personalization, are excessively disseminated across several documents, with buttons and links on which it is required to click to access complementary information,” the regulator writes.

For instance, if a user wants to know how their data is processed to personalize ads, it takes 5 or 6 taps. The CNIL also says that it’s often too hard to understand how your data is being used — Google’s wording is broad and obscure on purpose.

Second, Google’s consent flow doesn’t comply with the GDPR according to the CNIL. By default, Google really pushes you to sign in or sign up to a Google account. The company tells you that your experience will be worse if you don’t have a Google account. According to the CNIL, Google should separate the action of creating an account from the action of setting up a device — consent bundling is illegal under the GDPR.

If you choose to sign up to an account, when the company asks you to tick or untick some settings, Google doesn’t explain what it means. For instance, when Google asks you if you want personalized ads, the company doesn’t tell you that it is talking about many different services, from YouTube to Google Maps and Google Photos — this isn’t just about your Android phone.

In addition to that, Google doesn’t ask for specific and unambiguous consent when you create an account — the option to opt out of personalized ads is hidden behind a “More options” link. That option is pre-ticked by default (it shouldn’t).

Finally, by default, Google ticks a box that says “I agree to the processing of my information as described above and further explained in the Privacy Policy” when you create your account. Broad consent like this is also forbidden under the GDPR.

The CNIL also reminds Google that nothing has changed since its investigation in September 2018.

Max Schrems, Chairman of noyb has sent us the following statement:

“We are very pleased that for the first time a European data protection authority is using the possibilities of GDPR to punish clear violations of the law. Following the introduction of GDPR, we have found that large corporations such as Google simply ‘interpret the law differently’ and have often only superficially adapted their products. It is important that the authorities make it clear that simply claiming to be complaint is not enough. We are also pleased that our work to protect fundamental rights is bearing fruit. I would also like to thank our supporters who make our work possible.”


Read Full Article

The 10 Best Linux Games You Can Play for Free


best-free-linux-games

Are you just setting off on your Linux gaming adventure? Then you need to know about the best Linux games you can play for free. So many great Windows games are available on Linux, and there’s even a few unmissable titles that are only available on Linux.

So, if you’re looking for the best Linux games to play for free, here are 10 titles to get you started…

1. Wakfu

Mixing humor with combat, Wakfu is an amine-inspired MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role-playing game) with a life of its own. Worlds away from the earnest grind of WoW, Guild Wars, and other giants of the genre, Wakfu is just fun.

Heard of Wakfu already? It’s been spun off into an animated TV series, which you may have seen.

Wakfu is a different take on the MMORPG, so veterans of such games might spot a few issues with class balancing and crafting. If you’re new to MMORPGs, however, Wakfu is the perfect introduction to a massive gaming genre.

Wakfu is free, but you’ll need to purchase additional game content from Steam.

Download: Wakfu

2. Freeciv

One of the greatest and longest running gaming franchises is available on Linux via Steam. But if you’re looking for a free and open source alternative to Civilization, the answer is Freeciv.

Pit your nascent civilization against others in a test of time that requires you to dominate financially, militarily, and scientifically, while controlling and protecting your territory. The endgame is either total domination, or a successful rocket launch to explore the stars.

A network mode is available, giving you a great multiplayer experience. Freeciv also has a web version, and you can configure the game map for hexagonal or rectangular tiles, depending on your preferred style of play.

Freeciv was released in 1996 and is based heavily on Civilization 2. You can run it on Solaris, Amiga OS, and Windows, as well as Linux.

Download: Freeciv

3. Dota 2

Join millions of players on Valve’s Dota 2, reportedly the “most-played game on Steam”.

Boasting that “no two games are the same,” Dota 2 boasts a wide selection of heroes, abilities, and weapons. Nothing delivers an unfair of unwelcome advantage, however; you win or lose based entirely on your skill with the game and its features.

With such a popular game, joining as a new player might seem intimidating. Fortunately, we’ve compiled some great Dota 2 tips to help you become a better player.

Perhaps the most intriguing gameplay option is support for the HTC Vive, delivering a immersive Dota 2 experience via VR.

Although the core Dota 2 game remains free, you can buy cosmetic enhancements for your characters.

Download: Dota 2

4. OpenTTD

An open source version of 1995 game Transport Tycoon Deluxe, OpenTTD is a business sim in which you make money in transport and haulage.

Duplicating most features from the original game, OpenTTD ends on the source material, offering bigger maps, customizations, an improved user interface, and local and internet multiplayer, for up to 255 players. Additionally, the game has been visually enhanced, so prepare for polished graphics, bigger maps, new features, and increased complexity.

Fan of the original Transport Tycoon Deluxe or new to the game completely? Find help in the OpenTTD online manual.

It can be tricky to start making money, so check out our guide to creating amazing transportation systems in OpenTTD.

Download: OpenTTD

5. Team Fortress 2

Another big Valve title, Team Fortress 2 (aka TF2) is a free-to-play multiplayer first-person shooter (FPS). There’s a visible amount of gore in the game, which means the game is 16+, but if you’re old enough and that’s your thing, TF2 is incredibly good fun.

While multiplayer shooters can be intimidating, TF2 makes it easy to get started. Character creation can be tweaked to suit your gameplay style. Meanwhile, newcomers to TF2 can play training and offline practice modes to get themselves in shape for genuine MMO action.

Premium downloadable content is available for TF2, but you’ll find most customization items in-game.

Download: Team Fortress 2

6. OpenRA

An open source take on the Command & Conquer: Red Alert RTS (real-time strategy) series, OpenRA is a fan-created remake. It includes gameplay elements from other games by original developers Westwood, including Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn and Dune 2000.

Among enhancements over the original OpenRA are support for game replays, capture of civilian structures, fog of war, and the ability to stream games online.

Copyright holders EA announced in late 2018 that they plan to revive the Command & Conquer franchise. However, this should not affect OpenRA.

As well as running as a futuristic RTS, OpenRA can perform as a game server for network play.

OpenRA is available for BSD, macOS, and Windows, as well as Linux.

Download: OpenRA

7. Robocraft

Another multiplayer action shooter, Robocraft lets you build your own customizable robots and engage in combat with other players online.

Building takes place in an easy to use block-based user interface, where dozens of different weapons options can be added. When you’re done, test the robot against the AI before going online and fighting other players.

While things might get repetitive (fix this by creating plenty of different robots), Robocraft is a fun Linux multiplayer game.

Download: Robocraft

8. Hedgewars

First released in 2006, Hedgewars is a side-scrolling turn-based strategy game with a good dose of comedy. Sound familiar? Yes, it’s a Worms clone, but Hedgewars has an army of pink hedgehogs to control for domination of the map.

With support for up to eight players, single, local and network multiplayer, and in infinite number of maps based on 31 environments, you’re not going to get bored with this free Linux game.

Teams can be modified, games tweaked, and a selection of 55 weapons are at your disposal. These include options like the Piano Strike and the Melon Bomb. You can even make your own maps and costume mods, and download mods from other players.

Overall, if you’re looking for some good, free multiplayer strategy action on Linux, Hedgewars is so much fun!

Download: Hedgewars

9. Star Conflict

In this Elite Dangerous-style space combat MMO, you play as an elite space combat pilot, fighting in a galactic interplanetary skirmish.

Essentially a shooter in a spaceship, Star Conflict features PVP and PVE battles and quests, single player and multiplayer campaigns, over 100 types of spacecraft, various tactical roles, and much more.

Premium downloadable content is available for Star Conflict, which can save you a lot of time developing in-game skills.

Download: Star Conflict

10. SuperTuxKart

Created as an open source, Linux-only alternative to Super Mario Kart, SuperTuxKart is one of the most popular Linux games.

Initially released in 2007 (forked from TuxKart, which launched in 2000), SuperTuxKart features characters from various open source game projects, like the racers in Mario Kart.

However, SuperTuxKart isn’t a complete copy of the Nintendo title. To start off, it offers many game modes, from the standard normal race and time trial to the Easter Egg hunt and soccer modes.

As well as Linux, you can run SuperTuxKart on Windows, Android, and macOS.

Notably, SuperTuxKart features a story mode that unlocks tracks and characters, with each won race contributing to advancing the plot.

Download: SuperTuxKart

Where to Find the Best Free Linux Games

Gaming on Linux is easier than you think. You have a choice of finding free games on Steam or browsing the web for the best free and open source titles.

You can also look further afield, beyond Steam, to sites like itch.io where an index of Linux games is maintained. Or you could head to GOG.com and try some retro games with Linux compatibility (thanks to built-in DOS emulation).

Also look within the repositories of your Linux distro. Here you’ll find games that will run with your particular Linux flavor, which will typically include classics like Doom, and a ScummVM engine for point and click adventures.

If you’re keen on Linux gaming, it’s important to ensure you’re using the best operating system and drivers. Check out the best Linux operating systems for gaming to ensure you’re getting the most out of your PC.

Read the full article: The 10 Best Linux Games You Can Play for Free


Read Full Article

Is the Apple Watch for Kids? The 3 Best Kids Smart Watches

7 Simple Online Productivity Habits That Can Change Your Year


productivity-new-year

Making a New Year’s resolution is as easy as keeping it for the entire year is difficult. You start with determination to become a better, stronger version of your past year self. You stick to your resolution for the first week, maybe even the first month. But you don’t make it through the year.

A good rule of thumb is to make a resolution that is not too dramatic or absurd. It is much easier to follow resolutions with small changes to your lifestyle rather than try huge leaps. So, here are seven online resolutions (habits) that you too can try one small step at a time.

1. Don’t Get Sucked Into Online Arguments

New Year Resolution - Stop Online Arguments

Remember that time that guy on Twitter/Facebook/Reddit said something snarky about your favorite book/movie/political stance, and you spent hours arguing with him over it? Do you remember actually winning that argument? Do you remember looking back and feeling good about spending all that time over that one argument?

The main thing to remember about social media is that it encourages emotional instead of logical conversations. When a person expresses a view in opposition to yours, that opinion is a matter of personal choice. They will most likely not be swayed by your well-reasoned counter-argument.

Also don’t forget about the online trolls, who will deliberately goad you into starting online shouting matches just for fun. Knowing how to respond to fallacious arguments won’t help if the other person is just trying to get a rise out of you.

There are many spaces online to engage in reasoned, thoughtful debate, like r/Debate, Debate.org, and Procon.org. Stick to these spaces, and, no matter how strongly you feel about it, avoid starting flame wars on Reddit about how Jared Leto’s Joker was a more faithful comic book adaptation than Heath Ledger’s.

2. Keep Track of Time Wasted on Social Media

We all probably spend more time on social media than is good for us. You click that one facebook profile of your favorite celebrity and then spend hours stalking their photos. Time seems to really fly at such times. Before you know it, you’ve wasted another couple of hours snooping.

Even Facebook was forced recently to warn users against becoming addicted to its site. There are apps, like Social Fever and OFFTIME that you can use to keep track of the time you spend on social media. You can use these apps to:

  • Set a limit to how long you use a particular social media app
  • Get weekly reports on your app usage with accompanying analytics
  • Set custom auto-replies so you don’t have to spend unnecessary time online
  • Block unwanted calls, texts, and notifications

Download: Social Fever for Android (Free)

Download: OFFTIME for Android (Free)

3. Spend Time on Self Improvement

Commit yourself to spend at least an hour or two every week online dedicated to self-improvement. Go to a site that teaches you a skill you always wanted to learn. Or watch an interview with a professional you admire talking about their work.

Read inspirational articles or watch some of the best YouTube channels for self-improvement. The point is to use the internet to improve yourself.

There is a wealth of information, even on social media, geared toward bettering your mind. There are groups and forums on Facebook, Reddit and every other platform where members meet to share their passion for a subject. Join these groups and learn from them.

4. Keep Your Online Bio Updated

Most people remember to create a profile on LinkedIn and other job sites. But few remember to keep their profiles updated. A year has passed, and in that year you have gained more experience at your job while reaching new professional milestones.

Take some time to add these achievements to your profile on job sites. If you have worked recently with a new client, ask them to write a few lines of recommendation on your profile page. With more and more professionals finding work online, you cannot afford to neglect your virtual presence in your field of work.

5. Set Up a Social Media Page to Explore Your Passions

Start a learning group

Start a page. Any kind of page. A YouTube channel. A WhatsApp or Telegram group. A Facebook social learning group. The only rule is that the page should be about exploring an activity that you feel passionately about. You can even turn your page into a learning group and volunteer training.

Forget about trying to make money off the page. The aim isn’t to create a new source of income, but a new source of interest to enrich yourself spiritually and mentally.

6. Start Networking with Professionals

How many times do you respond to LinkedIn connection notifications? While the internet economy is a thriving ecosystem, most of us are content to simply check out job sites from time to time for new vacancies.

This is only a small part of what the internet can do for you professionally. It is important to interact online not only with your friends but also with your professional contacts.

Sites like LinkedIn and Reddit have thriving communities for professionals to interact and help each other. Some ways to grow your online professional network are:

  • Interact with new contact requests. Actively seek out people on sites like LinkedIn that you would like to work with.
  • Attend professional networking events. Even local ones are announced on social media like Twitter and hyperlocal Facebook groups.
  • Do favors for your contacts when possible. This shows you are someone who likes to collaborate in your field of work.
  • Create your own forum. Reddit and Facebook groups are good candidates when you want to work with other professionals on passion projects together.

7. Keep Track with Time Management Apps

The internet is not the only place for wasting time. You do it all the time in the real world as well. The most common reason for time wastage is the absence of a schedule.

You spend more time on one particular project than you should have. Then you take a break after all the extra work. Before you know it, you’re falling behind on your work.

Time management apps are a great way to make sure you spend fixed amounts of time on projects. Apps like Mind42, MyLifeOrganized, and Toggl help you schedule your day in advance, offering features like:

  • Tracking how much time is spent on different projects
  • Teaching you productivity techniques like mind mapping and focus gathering.
  • Managing your to-do lists and organizing your goals.

Resolve to Become More Productive

Modern life is busier than ever, and it is a constant struggle to find time for everything you want to accomplish in a single day. These habits can help ensure that your time online becomes a meaningful part of your life instead of time black holes.

Maybe, you are still feeling a bit overwhelmed. So why not narrow your horizon and take on any challenge as a 30-day learning project this year!

Read the full article: 7 Simple Online Productivity Habits That Can Change Your Year


Read Full Article

Technical Analysis


Technical Analysis

The case against behavioral advertising is stacking up


No one likes being stalked around the Internet by adverts. It’s the uneasy joke you can’t enjoy laughing at. Yet vast people-profiling ad businesses have made pots of money off of an unregulated Internet by putting surveillance at their core.

But what if creepy ads don’t work as claimed? What if all the filthy lucre that’s currently being sunk into the coffers of ad tech giants — and far less visible but no less privacy-trampling data brokers — is literally being sunk, and could both be more honestly and far better spent?

Case in point: This week Digiday reported that the New York Times managed to grow its ad revenue after it cut off ad exchanges in Europe. The newspaper did this in order to comply with the region’s updated privacy framework, GDPR, which includes a regime of supersized maximum fines.

The newspaper business decided it simply didn’t want to take the risk, so first blocked all open-exchange ad buying on its European pages and then nixed behavioral targeting. The result? A significant uptick in ad revenue, according to Digiday’s report.

“NYT International focused on contextual and geographical targeting for programmatic guaranteed and private marketplace deals and has not seen ad revenues drop as a result, according to Jean-Christophe Demarta, SVP for global advertising at New York Times International,” it writes.

“Currently, all the ads running on European pages are direct-sold. Although the publisher doesn’t break out exact revenues for Europe, Demarta said that digital advertising revenue has increased significantly since last May and that has continued into early 2019.”

It also quotes Demarta summing up the learnings: “The desirability of a brand may be stronger than the targeting capabilities. We have not been impacted from a revenue standpoint, and, on the contrary, our digital advertising business continues to grow nicely.”

So while (of course) not every publisher is the NYT, publishers that have or can build brand cachet, and pull in a community of engaged readers, must and should pause for thought — and ask who is the real winner from the notion that digitally served ads must creep on consumers to work?

The NYT’s experience puts fresh taint on long-running efforts by tech giants like Facebook to press publishers to give up more control and ownership of their audiences by serving and even producing content directly for the third party platforms. (Pivot to video anyone?)

Such efforts benefit platforms because they get to make media businesses dance to their tune. But the self-serving nature of pulling publishers away from their own distribution channels (and content convictions) looks to have an even more bass string to its bow — as a cynical means of weakening the link between publishers and their audiences, thereby risking making them falsely reliant on adtech intermediaries squatting in the middle of the value chain.

There are other signs behavioural advertising might be a gigantically self-serving con too.

Look at non-tracking search engine DuckDuckGo, for instance, which has been making a profit by serving keyword-based ads and not profiling users since 2014, all the while continuing to grow usage — and doing so in a market that’s dominated by search giant Google.

DDG recently took in $10M in VC funding from a pension fund that believes there’s an inflection point in the online privacy story. These investors are also displaying strong conviction in the soundness of the underlying (non-creepy) ad business, again despite the overbearing presence of Google.

Meanwhile, Internet users continue to express widespread fear and loathing of the ad tech industry’s bandwidth- and data-sucking practices by running into the arms of ad blockers. Figures for usage of ad blocking tools step up each year, with between a quarter and a third of U.S. connected device users’ estimated to be blocking ads as of 2018 (rates are higher among younger users).

Ad blocking firm Eyeo, maker of the popular AdBlock Plus product, has achieved such a position of leverage that it gets Google et al to pay it to have their ads whitelisted by default — under its self-styled ‘acceptable ads’ program. (Though no one will say how much they’re paying to circumvent default ad blocks.)

So the creepy ad tech industry is not above paying other third parties for continued — and, at this point, doubly grubby (given the ad blocking context) — access to eyeballs. Does that sound even slightly like a functional market?

In recent years expressions of disgust and displeasure have also been coming from the ad spending side too — triggered by brand-denting scandals attached to the hateful stuff algorithms have been serving shiny marketing messages alongside. You don’t even have to be worried about what this stuff might be doing to democracy to be a concerned advertiser.

Fast moving consumer goods giants Unilever and Procter & Gamble are two big spenders which have expressed concerns. The former threatened to pull ad spend if social network giants didn’t clean up their act and prevent their platforms algorithmically accelerating hateful and divisive content.

While the latter has been actively reevaluating its marketing spending — taking a closer look at what digital actually does for it. And last March Adweek reported it had slashed $200M from its digital ad budget yet had seen a boost in its reach of 10 per cent, reinvesting the money into areas with “‘media reach’ including television, audio and ecommerce”.

The company’s CMO, Marc Pritchard, declined to name which companies it had pulled ads from but in a speech at an industry conference he said it had reduced spending “with several big players” by 20 per cent to 50 per cent, and still its ad business grew.

So chalk up another tale of reduced reliance on targeted ads yielding unexpected business uplift.

At the same time, academics are digging into the opaquely shrouded question of who really benefits from behavioral advertising. And perhaps getting closer to an answer.

Last fall, at an FTC hearing on the economics of big data and personal information, Carnegie Mellon University professor of IT and public policy, Alessandro Acquisti, teased a piece of yet to be published research — working with a large U.S. publisher that provided the researchers with millions of transactions to study.

Acquisti said the research showed that behaviourally targeted advertising had increased the publisher’s revenue but only marginally. At the same time they found that marketers were having to pay orders of magnitude more to buy these targeted ads, despite the minuscule additional revenue they generated for the publisher.

“What we found was that, yes, advertising with cookies — so targeted advertising — did increase revenues — but by a tiny amount. Four per cent. In absolute terms the increase in revenues was $0.000008 per advertisment,” Acquisti told the hearing. “Simultaneously we were running a study, as merchants, buying ads with a different degree of targeting. And we found that for the merchants sometimes buying targeted ads over untargeted ads can be 500% times as expensive.”

“How is it possible that for merchants the cost of targeting ads is so much higher whereas for publishers the return on increased revenues for targeted ads is just 4%,” he wondered, posing a question that publishers should really be asking themselves — given, in this example, they’re the ones doing the dirty work of snooping on (and selling out) their readers.

Acquisti also made the point that a lack of data protection creates economic winners and losers, arguing this is unavoidable — and thus qualifying the oft-parroted tech industry lobby line that privacy regulation is a bad idea because it would benefit an already dominant group of players. The rebuttal is that a lack of privacy rules also does that. And that’s exactly where we are now.

“There is a sort of magical thinking happening when it comes to targeted advertising [that claims] everyone benefits from this,” Acquisti continued. “Now at first glance this seems plausible. The problem is that upon further inspection you find there is very little empirical validation of these claims… What I’m saying is that we actually don’t know very well to which these claims are true and false. And this is a pretty big problem because so many of these claims are accepted uncritically.”

There’s clearly far more research that needs to be done to robustly interrogate the effectiveness of targeted ads against platform claims and vs more vanilla types of advertising (i.e. which don’t demand reams of personal data to function). But the fact that robust research hasn’t been done is itself interesting.

Acquisti noted the difficulty of researching “opaque blackbox” ad exchanges that aren’t at all incentivized to be transparent about what’s going on. Also pointing out that Facebook has sometimes admitted to having made mistakes that significantly inflated its ad engagement metrics.

His wider point is that much current research into the effectiveness of digital ads is problematically narrow and so is exactly missing a broader picture of how consumers might engage with alternative types of less privacy-hostile marketing.

In a nutshell, then, the problem is the lack of transparency from ad platforms; and that lack serving the self same opaque giants.

But there’s more. Critics of the current system point out it relies on mass scale exploitation of personal data to function, and many believe this simply won’t fly under Europe’s tough new GDPR framework.

They are applying legal pressure via a set of GDPR complaints, filed last fall, that challenge the legality of a fundamental piece of the (current) adtech industry’s architecture: Real-time bidding (RTB); arguing the system is fundamentally incompatible with Europe’s privacy rules.

We covered these complaints last November but the basic argument is that bid requests essentially constitute systematic data breaches because personal data is broadcast widely to solicit potential ad buys and thereby poses an unacceptable security risk — rather than, as GDPR demands, people’s data being handled in a way that “ensures appropriate security”.

To spell it out, the contention is the entire behavioral advertising business is illegal because it’s leaking personal data at such vast and systematic scale it cannot possibly comply with EU data protection law.

Regulators are considering the argument, and courts may follow. But it’s clear adtech systems that have operated in opaque darkness for years, without no worry of major compliance fines, no longer have the luxury of being able to take their architecture as a given.

Greater legal risk might be catalyst enough to encourage a market shift towards less intrusive targeting; ads that aren’t targeted based on profiles of people synthesized from heaps of personal data but, much like DuckDuckGo’s contextual ads, are only linked to a real-time interest and a generic location. No creepy personal dossiers necessary.

If Acquisti’s research is to be believed — and here’s the kicker for Facebook et al — there’s little reason to think such ads would be substantially less effective than the vampiric microtargeted variant that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg likes to describe as “relevant”.

The ‘relevant ads’ badge is of course a self-serving concept which Facebook uses to justify creeping on users while also pushing the notion that its people-tracking business inherently generates major extra value for advertisers. But does it really do that? Or are advertisers buying into another puffed up fake?

Facebook isn’t providing access to internal data that could be used to quantify whether its targeted ads are really worth all the extra conjoined cost and risk. While the company’s habit of buying masses of additional data on users, via brokers and other third party sources, makes for a rather strange qualification. Suggesting things aren’t quite what you might imagine behind Zuckerberg’s drawn curtain.

Behavioral ad giants are facing growing legal risk on another front. The adtech market has long been referred to as a duopoly, on account of the proportion of digital ad spending that gets sucked up by just two people-profiling giants: Google and Facebook (the pair accounted for 58% of the market in 2018, according to eMarketer data) — and in Europe a number of competition regulators have been probing the duopoly.

Earlier this month the German Federal Cartel Office was reported to be on the brink of partially banning Facebook from harvesting personal data from third party providers (including but not limited to some other social services it owns). Though an official decision has yet to be handed down.

While, in March 2018, the French Competition Authority published a meaty opinion raising multiple concerns about the online advertising sector — and calling for an overhaul and a rebalancing of transparency obligations to address publisher concerns that dominant platforms aren’t providing access to data about their own content.

The EC’s competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, is also taking a closer look at whether data hoarding constitutes a monopoly. And has expressed a view that, rather than breaking companies up in order to control platform monopolies, the better way to go about it in the modern ICT era might be by limiting access to data — suggesting another potentially looming legal headwind for personal data-sucking platforms.

At the same time, the political risks of social surveillance architectures have become all too clear.

Whether microtargeted political propaganda works as intended or not is still a question mark. But few would support letting attempts to fiddle elections just go ahead and happen anyway.

Yet Facebook has rushed to normalize what are abnormally hostile uses of its tools; aka the weaponizing of disinformation to further divisive political ends — presenting ‘election security’ as just another day-to-day cost of being in the people farming business. When the ‘cost’ for democracies and societies is anything but normal. 

Whether or not voters can be manipulated en masse via the medium of targeted ads, the act of targeting itself certainly has an impact — by fragmenting the shared public sphere which civilized societies rely on to drive consensus and compromise. Ergo, unregulated social media is inevitably an agent of antisocial change.

The solution to technology threatening democracy is far more transparency; so regulating platforms to understand how, why and where data is flowing, and thus get a proper handle on impacts in order to shape desired outcomes.

Greater transparency also offers a route to begin to address commercial concerns about how the modern adtech market functions.

And if and when ad giants are forced to come clean — about how they profile people; where data and value flows; and what their ads actually deliver — you have to wonder what if anything will be left unblemished.

People who know they’re being watched alter their behavior. Similarly, platforms may find behavioral change enforced upon them, from above and below, when it becomes impossible for everyone else to ignore what they’re doing.


Read Full Article

Facebook launches petition feature, its next battlefield


Gather a mob and Facebook will now let you make political demands. Tomorrow Facebook will encounter a slew of fresh complexities with the launch of Community Actions, its News Feed petition feature. Community Actions could unite neighbors to request change from their local and national elected officials and government agencies. But it could also provide vocal interest groups a bully pulpit from which to pressure politicians and bureaucrats with their fringe agendas.

Community Actions embodies the central challenge facing Facebook. Every tool it designs for positive expression and connectivity can be subverted for polarization and misinformation. Facebook’s membership has swelled into such a ripe target for exploitation that it draws out the worst of humanity. You can imagine misuses like “Crack down on [minority group]” that are offensive or even dangerous but some see as legitimate. The question is whether Facebook puts in the forethought and aftercare to safeguard its new tools with proper policy and moderation. Otherwise each new feature is another liability.

Community Actions roll out to the entire US tomorrow after several weeks of testing in a couple of markets. Users can add a title, description, and image to their Community Action, and tag relevant government agencies and officials who’ll be notified. The goal is to make the Community Action go viral and get people to hit the “Support” button. Community Actions have their own discussion feed where people can leave comments, create fundraisers, and organize Facebook Events or Call Your Rep campaigns. Facebook displays the numbers of supporters behind a Community Action, but you’ll only be able to see the names of those you’re friends with or that are Pages or public figures.

Facebook is purposefully trying to focus Community Actions to be more narrowly concentrated on spurring government action than just any random cause. That means it won’t immediately replace Change.org petitions that can range from the civilian to the absurd. But one-click Support straight from the News Feed could massively reduce the friction to signing up, and thereby attract organizations and individuals seeking to maximize the size of their mob.

You can check out some examples here of Community Actions here like a non-profit Colorado Rising calling for the governor to put a moratorium on oil and gas drilling, citizens asking the a Florida’s mayor and state officials to build a performing arts center, and a Philadelphia neighborhood association requesting that the city put in crosswalks by the library.

The launch follows other civic-minded Facebook features like its Town Hall and Candidate Info for assessing politicians, Community Help for finding assistance after a disaster, and local news digest Today In. A Facebook spokesperson who gave us the first look at Community Actions provided this statement:

“Building informed and civically engaged communities is at the core of Facebook’s mission. Every day, people come together on Facebook to advocate for causes they care about, including by contacting their elected officials, launching a fundraiser, or starting a group. Through these and other tools, we have seen people marshal support for and get results on issues that matter to them. Community Action is another way for people to advocate for changes in their communities and partner with elected officials and government agencies on solutions.”

The question will be where Facebook’s moderators draw the line on what’s appropriate as a Community Action, and the ensuing calls of bias that line will trigger. Facebook is employing a combination of user flagging, proactive algorithmic detection, and human enforcers to manage the feature. But what the left might call harassment, the right might call free expression. If Facebook allows controversial Community Actions to persist, it could be viewed as complicit with their campaigns, but could be criticized for censorship if it takes one down. Like fake news and trending topics, the feature could become the social network’s latest can of worms.

Facebook is trying to prioritize local Actions where community members have a real stake. It lets user display “constituent” badges so their elected officials know they aren’t just a distant rabble-rouser. It’s why Facebook will not allow President Donald Trump or Vice President Mike Pence to be tagged in Community Actions. But you’re free to tag all your state representatives demanding nude parks, apparently.

Another issue is how people can stand up against a Community Action. Only those who Support one may join in its discussion feed. That might lead trolls to falsely pledge their backing just to stir up trouble in the comments. Otherwise, Facebook tells me users will have to share a Community Action to their own feed with a message of disapproval, or launch their own in protest. My concern is that an agitated but niche group could drive a sense of false equivocacy by using Facebook Groups or message threads to make it look like there’s as much or more support for a vulgar cause or against of a just one. A politician could be backed into a corner and forced to acknowledge radicals or bad-faith actors lest they look negligent

While Facebook’s spokesperson says initial tests didn’t surface many troubles, the company is trying to balance safety with efficiency and it will consider how to evolve the feature in response to emergent behaviors. The trouble is that open access draws out the trolls and grifters seeking to fragment society. Facebook will have to assume the thorny responsibility of shepherding the product towards righteousness and defining what that even means. If it succeeds, there’s an amazing opportunity here for citizens to band together to exert consensus upon government. A chorus of voices carries much further than a single cry.


Read Full Article