As Facebook Reveals Dark Posts, Twitter Keeps Them Hidden

Brendan Mcdermid / Reuters

Facebook pledged last week to reveal all ads being shown to its users, even those not appearing on advertiser profiles, after it was revealed that the company ran Russian-linked ads meant to influence the election. Twitter, however, will not commit to the same, and appears to have no plans to expose its so-called dark posts to public scrutiny.

Twitter, which had an outsized presence in the 2016 US presidential election thanks largely to then-candidate Donald Trump, currently hides promoted posts that don’t appear publicly on ad buyers’ profiles. And as of this writing it appears to have no plans to do otherwise.

Last Thursday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said his company intends to make these dark posts public as part of an effort to increase transparency after discovering that Russia-linked ads on Facebook may have interfered with the US presidential election.

Dark ads or posts are commonly purchased on social networks as a way to reach very specific audiences. The messaging is typically targeted at a particular demographic and the posts delivering it aren’t visible on the advertisers’ timelines or pages after they’ve been shared. They're especially useful in politics, where advertisers can create scores of highly targeted ads meant to be shown to specific segments of the electorate.

Twitter's current policy allows advertisers to run dark ads without showing them to the broader public. Asked if it would follow Facebook's lead and make publicly visible the dark ads currently hidden on its platform, a Twitter spokesperson declined to answer, saying simply, “We don't have anything to announce now.”

That would leave Twitter behind Facebook, which Zuckerberg said hopes to create “a new standard for transparency in online political ads.”

Dark ads have long frustrated researchers, who say they hamper deep understanding of political campaigns. And because they are not subject to the same oversight as traditional radio, TV, and print ads, they’re also enticing to foreign entities that might seek to influence elections without leaving a trail of digital breadcrumbs. Facebook, for example, has been drawn into a congressional inquiry into the Kremlin’s influence operation during the 2016 US presidential campaign because of dark ads that appeared on its pages.

Congress has recently been ratcheting up its scrutiny of how major online platforms handle political ads. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner are trying to rally support for a bill that would require digital platforms with over 1 million users to put any political ad buy of more than $10,000 into a public database. Meanwhile, the Federal Election Commission is examining online ad disclosure rules.

“We hope Twitter will demonstrate leadership by acknowledging the issues dark ads on social media present for democratic states and work with the FEC and Congress to enact sensible legislative and regulatory reforms that for disclosure and disclaimers for online platforms that host paid political ads,” said Alex Howard, deputy director of Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan government transparency group.

Howard's call for transparency comes as Twitter leadership is expected to meet with the Senate Intelligence Committee in relation to its Russian election-tampering investigation this week.

Quelle: <a href="As Facebook Reveals Dark Posts, Twitter Keeps Them Hidden“>BuzzFeed

Instagram Lets You Limit Comments Just to People You Follow

Today, Instagram is rolling out new features aimed at making it harder for trolls and harassers, and to also look out for some of its most vulnerable users.

1. A big new change that’ll make it easier to eliminate creepers: You’ll be able to limit who can comment on your posts. There will be four options:

  • Everyone

  • People you follow

  • People who follow you

  • People who follow you and people you follow

This will only be available to public accounts. Previously, you could only block comments from people one by one, and it’s wasn’t possible to control large groups of people.

Instagram

2. The “hide offensive comments” feature will now be available in French, German, Portuguese, and Arabic. This feature launched in English in June as a way of blocking certain words, but now it’s expanded into a more robust, AI-powered detection of the nuances of harassing comments.

To turn it on, go into the “Comments” section of the Instagram app, and toggle on the Automatic filter:

To turn it on, go into the “Comments” section of the Instagram app, and toggle on the Automatic filter:

3. The last feature is an enhancement to the mental health and safety tool aimed at helping people who are posting about self-injury or suicide. Currently, when you report a post, Story, or live feed for self-hard or suicide content, the person will be shown a notification that says “we’re reaching out to offer help.”

Starting today, that menu will now show up during a live stream if someone is worried about you and reports your live stream for self-harm. Before, the menu would only show up after your live stream had ended, which might be too late. You can browse the options (anonymously) in the menu while live streaming, and then seamlessly return to your stream.

Instagram

You can view resources that will suggest you should contact a friend, call a helpline, or get tips and support (the specific support links and helplines will vary by country).

This also means that to be effective, the reports need to be reviewed and processed by human moderators very quickly – while someone is still streaming. Instagram says of its moderation efforts, “we have teams working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, around the world to be there when people need us most. This is an important step in ensuring that people get help wherever they are – on Instagram or off.”

Quelle: <a href="Instagram Lets You Limit Comments Just to People You Follow“>BuzzFeed

This New Facebook Feature Could Help You Find Out Who's Running A Page

Facebook

Facebook just launched a way for page managers to identify themselves to the public. The new feature is now available on all pages, but it is optional and therefore unlikely to be used by pages involved in suspect activity.

BuzzFeed News identified an early version of the feature on a Russian-language news page run from Germany. The right-hand rail of the page features a section called “Team Members” and lists the name and profile photo of a man who manages the page. When contacted via Facebook Messenger, he confirmed it was a new feature.

After BuzzFeed News asked Facebook about the “Team Member” section, the company published a help center article that details how it works, and a spokesperson said the feature was now available globally.

“Adding yourself as a team member on your Page is a way to show other people on Facebook that you're a manager of that Page,” says the help article.

The spokesperson, who agreed to talk on condition of anonymity, told BuzzFeed News the company has been testing the feature “for a few weeks,” which aligns with the timing of this question posted to a Facebook help community.

Prior to this new feature there was no way to publicly identify the manager(s) of a page. This differs from Facebook groups, which list the admins of any group. The Facebook spokesperson told BuzzFeed News there are “no plans right now to make this mandatory” for pages.

In addition to showing the profiles of team members on a page's timeline, they will also be listed on the About page. The help article also said that the page will be listed on the Facebook profile of the team members.

Facebook

Quelle: <a href="This New Facebook Feature Could Help You Find Out Who's Running A Page“>BuzzFeed

North Korea Says Trump's Tweet Is A Declaration Of War. Twitter Won't Say If It Violates Its Rules.

Getty Images / John Paczkowski

On Monday morning North Korea's foreign minister told journalists gathered near the United Nations that president Trump's recent tweet about North Korea were a declaration of war against his country. Trump's “they won't be around much longer!” tweet and North Korea's interpretation of it are the latest in a series of escalations between the two powers that have set the international community on high alert. Since Trump made the remark on Twitter, today's comments from North Korea also raise the question: does a threat that leads to a declaration of war violate the company's opaque rules for conduct and its prohibitions against harassment and incitement?

Twitter appears unwilling to weigh in. Asked for comment on Trump's September 23rd tweet — specifically if it violates the company's terms of service — a Twitter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News it “does not comment on individual accounts for privacy and security reasons.”

Twitter's silence comes as little surprise — the company's decision not to comment on individual accounts for privacy reasons (even when the account is held by the President of the United States to conduct government business) is a long-held policy designed to shield the company from accountability. And while Trump has continually tested the limits of Twitter's rules throughout his candidacy and presidency, the latest escalation, this particular tweet is clearly uncharted territory for the social network.

Following a strict interpretation of Twitter's rules, Trump's recent tweet — a clear threat toward North Korea's foreign minister — is likely a violation of Twitter's rules, which state that “you may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others” and defines abusive incitement as:

If a primary purpose of the reported account is to harass or send abusive messages to others;

If the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats;

If the reported account is inciting others to harass another account; and

If the reported account is sending harassing messages to an account from multiple accounts.

Historically, Twitter's interpretation and enforcement of its rules have been inconsistent. And though Twitter told Slate late last year that its policies apply to all its users, the company has been reluctant to weigh in on Trump's conduct on its platform. In December 2016 the company declined to comment when Trump used his Twitter account to lambaste Chuck Jones, an Indiana union organizer who criticized him; The Washington Post reported that Jones was inundated with threatening phone calls as a result. And the company took no action this summer when Trump tweeted a meme that showed him as a wrestler body slamming the CNN logo — an instance that some interpreted as a threat against at journalists.

For tweets like these, the New York Times has dubbed Trump the “Cyberbully in Chief” and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has described his feelings about Trump's use of Twitter as “”complicated.” But Monday's statements threaten to raise the stakes for the social network and present a series of difficult policy questions as to how it enforces its rules with the commander in chief. Among them: does the President of the United States merit a Twitter rules exemption? Is a tweet interpreted as a declaration of war a violation of the company's terms of service?

This is — again — uncharted territory for the social network. But while Twitter opts for silence, others, including North Korea are speaking up. Outside the U.N. Minister Ho told reporters that Trump's tweet would not go unanswered.

Quelle: <a href="North Korea Says Trump's Tweet Is A Declaration Of War. Twitter Won't Say If It Violates Its Rules.“>BuzzFeed

Steve Bannon Sought To Infiltrate Facebook Hiring

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Steve Bannon plotted to plant a mole inside Facebook, according to emails sent days before the Breitbart boss took over Donald Trump’s campaign and obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The email exchange with a conservative Washington operative reveals the importance that the giant tech platform — now reeling from its role in the 2016 election — held for one of the campaign’s central figures. And it also shows the lengths to which the brawling new American right is willing to go to keep tabs on and gain leverage over the Silicon Valley giants they used to help elect Trump — but whose executives they also see as part of the globalist enemy.

The idea to infiltrate Facebook came to Bannon from Chris Gacek, a former congressional staffer who is now an official at the Family Research Council, which lobbies against abortion and many LGBT rights.

“There is one for a DC-based ‘Public Policy Manager’ at Facebook’s What’s APP [sic] division,” Gacek, the Senior Fellow for Regulatory Affairs at the group, wrote on August 1, 2016. “LinkedIn sent me a notice about some job openings.”

“This seems perfect for Breitbart to flood the zone with candidates of all stripe who will report back to you / Milo with INTEL about the job application process over at FB,” he continued.

“Milo” is former Breitbart News Tech Editor Milo Yiannopoulos, to whom Bannon forwarded Gacek’s email the same day.

“Can u get on this,” Bannon instructed his staffer.

On the same email thread, Yiannopoulos forwarded Bannon’s request to a group of contracted researchers, one of whom responded that “[it] Seems dificult [sic] to do quietly without them becoming aware of efforts.”

Neither Bannon, Yiannopoulos, Gacek, nor the Family Research Council responded to multiple requests for comment on the exchange, and it’s unclear whether the men’s plans ever advanced beyond spitballing on email.

But the news that Bannon wanted to infiltrate the Facebook hiring process comes as the social media giant faces increased scrutiny from Washington over political ads on the platform and the part it played in the 2016 election. That charge — and the threat of regulation — has mostly come from the left. But conservatives, who have often complained about the liberal bias of the major tech companies, have also argued for bringing Silicon Valley to heel. Earlier this month, the former White House Chief Strategist told an audience in Hong Kong that he was leading efforts to regulate Facebook and Google as “public utilities.”

The secret attempt to find bias in Facebook’s hiring process reflects longstanding conservative fears that Facebook and the other tech giants are run by liberals who suppress right-wing views both internally and on their dominant platforms. Facebook’s powerful COO, Sheryl Sandberg, is a longtime Democratic donor who endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016. In May 2016, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was forced to meet with dozens of prominent conservatives after a report surfaced that the company’s employees prevented right-leaning stories from reaching the platform’s “trending section.”

The company has sought to deflect such criticism through hiring. Its vice president of global public policy, Joel Kaplan, was a deputy chief of staff in the George W. Bush White House. And more recently, Facebook has made moves to represent the Breitbart wing of the Republican party on its policy team, tapping a former top staffer to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to be the director of executive branch public policy in May.

The job listing Gacek attached in his email to Bannon was for a Public Policy Manager position in Washington, DC, working on the Facebook-owned WhatsApp messenger. The job description included such responsibilities as “Develop and execute WhatsApp’s global policy strategy,” and “Represent WhatsApp in meetings with government officials and elected members.” It sought candidates with law degrees and ten years of public policy experience.

Facebook did not provide a comment for the story. But according to a source with knowledge of the hiring process, WhatsApp didn’t exactly get infiltrated by the pro-Trump right: The company hired the former director of Trade Policy and Global Supply Chain Security in President Barack Obama’s National Security Council, Christine Turner, for the role.

Quelle: <a href="Steve Bannon Sought To Infiltrate Facebook Hiring“>BuzzFeed

Ellen Pao’s Story Is Messier Than Her Book Makes It Sound

Ellen Pao leaves the San Francisco Superior Court Civic Center Courthouse on March 27, 2015 in San Francisco.

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

Anyone who’s been curious about the Ellen Pao story has been eagerly awaiting her memoir, Reset: My Fight for Inclusion and Lasting Change, which was finally released this week. To recap: In 2012, Pao filed a $16 million gender discrimination suit against her employer, the legendary venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers — and the ensuing five-week gender bias trial in 2015 became an obsession of the tech industry. Reset has a lofty aim: to give Pao a platform to finally explain how she established herself as a champion of diversity and equality in the workplace.

But the reality is much more complicated. At times, Reset scans as strategically engineered to burnish Pao’s narrative, which has been reshaped by time and the collective memory of her trial to turn her into a figurehead for the diversity movement in tech. But Pao is a contradictory figure — one who, even in her own memoir, contradicts herself and remains reticent about details that don’t serve her rebranding purpose.

The cover of Ellen Pao's new memoir, Reset.

Penguin Random House

The book starts by tracing Pao’s “American dream” ascent, from growing up the daughter of first-generation Chinese immigrants in New Jersey to landing a coveted job as a partner at Kleiner Perkins. But the details are bland: She lives in an idyllic neighborhood in the suburbs, where she and her two sisters are the only Asians in the community, but she isn’t terribly offended by the occasional bigotry the other kids display. Instead, she learns to keep her head down and work hard, and she uses this strategy to excel academically and get degrees from Princeton and Harvard in electrical engineering, law, and business.

When Pao describes her time at a law firm, her anecdotes sound like a metaphor for sexism, rather than describing specific sexism itself. Pao keeps her subjects anonymous: She tells stories of a coworker peering down women’s blouses and a partner who stares at a colleague while licking an ice cream cone. It sounds gross, but it’s hard to connect with; and it feels like she’s tiptoeing around something — perhaps accidentally offending someone in her past.

It is only in the book’s middle section — when Pao recounts her experiences at Kleiner Perkins and at Reddit, where Pao was interim CEO for nine months — that she finally finds her voice. She is sharper and specific; she finally drops her reluctance to tell us which powerful person did exactly what. She trains a wry eye on their eyeroll-inducing behavior: “As a non-managing partner, I would presumably be left to die, flu-ravaged face pressed against the window of the conference room,” Pao writes of one rich VC's obsession with stockpiling Tamiflu for managing partners and their families if the contagion ever arrived. “I was probably labeled a buzzkill” for instituting a rule to ban hard alcohol at the Reddit office, she relays, “but I didn’t care.” Even then, it’s worth noting that it is only events that Pao has already blown the whistle on that she chooses to depict in even more colorful detail in her memoir. The rest of it reads as image control, or contradiction.

Case in point: Pao says she’s a “board games and soda” girl and raises her eyebrows at the excesses of the Kleiner partners, yet she lives in the same San Francisco apartment building as Al Gore. She’s offended by the guys sitting in the “skydeck” (the top row) at business school passing a dildo around, but thought a coworker setting up a porn server at a tech startup she worked at was “dopey, but not terrible.” She talks about being awakened to a “distinctly religious experience” during the trial, which has the flavor of someone considering a run for office.

“Sometimes I even go back and question the things I saw and heard, because I feel like the Ellen Pao story has become so powerful and taken on a life of its own.”

Pao also conducts her post-trial life with a level of caution that would make any PR crisis manager proud. In her memoir, she describes launching the nonprofit Project Include using a formula that is familiar to PR practitioners: a carefully crafted press release, a prearranged interview with a trusted journalist, and a hypersensitivity to the nature of the feedback. (“We were covered positively in all the articles I read,” she writes in Reset.) In a lot of ways, she is much closer to a political figure like Hillary Clinton than a writer and activist like Gloria Steinem. (Pao declined to be interviewed for this story.)

Reading Pao’s book brought back memories of my intense reporting experience covering her trial back in 2015, which journalists with whom I reported remember well. “It's fascinating to me that the public's version is that Ellen Pao was robbed and should have won, but inside the trial room it really wasn't that clear,” said Shalene Gupta, who covered the trial for Fortune magazine. “Sometimes I even go back and question the things I saw and heard, because I feel like the Ellen Pao story has become so powerful and taken [on] a life of its own.”

Indeed, the anecdotes Pao told during the trial, much like the anecdotes in her book, felt at times overly simplistic: Women at Kleiner Perkins were asked to do administrative tasks like note-taking during a meeting, or asked to sit in the back row during a company offsite. But under cross-examination, Pao admitted she sat in the front row on another day of the same offsite. Did that really mean being told to sit in the back row was any less humiliating, though?

Ellen Pao speaks to the media after losing her lawsuit against Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers in San Francisco on March 27, 2015.

Beck Diefenbach / Reuters

Granular questions like this made it difficult, listening to testimony, to get a clear handle on whether the discrimination Pao was alleging crossed into illegal territory. “She was suing for gender discrimination, but it’s such a small field,” said Gupta. “When one of 16 people is promoted, how do you make a case that you didn’t get your promotion because of gender discrimination?” But you can look at the composite field, Gupta pointed out, and you see that only one woman in the history of the company was promoted before the case. “So something is going on,” she said. “But then you get into all these details about the person and how likable she is — could it be this? Could it be that? You aren’t able to see the forest because you’re examining each tree.”

Complicating matters was the fact that Brunswick, the crisis-management firm that Kleiner Perkins hired during the trial (which is mentioned in Pao’s book), often called reporters up after their stories published, nitpicking details and pressuring us into making small corrections here and there — at times not because what we’d reported was inaccurate, but because it “lacked context.” Representatives would also email corrections as we were tweeting, which ratcheted up the anxiety we felt in covering the trial. “Sometimes I thought, was I an idiot who just got wrapped in Kleiner Perkins’ spin machine?” Gupta said.

“Many people thought [Pao’s case and the trial] was simpler than it was,” said Jeff Elder, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal who also covered the trial closely. “When Ellen lost and hung her head in the courtroom, it felt like a defeat for women. And the hits just kept on coming.”

“When Ellen lost and hung her head in the courtroom, it felt like a defeat for women. And the hits just kept on coming.”

Pao’s suit unfolded against the backdrop of what, in retrospect, foreshadowed the populist culture wars we are smack in the middle of today. Just look at what happened in the 2016 presidential election. The misogynistic abuse leveled at Pao at the time mimics the rhetoric from far-right internet personalities in the Trump era, who keep nudging the boundaries of acceptable conversation toward increasingly racist and sexist expression.

Pao certainly doesn't fit the mold of who we are taught is the ideal female colleague: noncombative and eager to help. She describes herself as “introverted” and “bad at self-promotion”; she has been described by others as overly negative, yet later having learned “how to activate her aggression.” But would she have gotten access to the halls of power at Kleiner Perkins at all if she wasn’t willing to be a little aggressive? Would Hillary Clinton, for that matter? And why do we subject women to this line of scrutiny, when similar traits from men make them “ambitious”? Could this be a reflection of society’s unreasonable and contradictory expectations of women? (Yes.)

No, Pao is not the “perfect” poster woman for gender equality, even as she tries to herd her image in that direction; her book is just the latest effort to come across that way. The result, as it always has been with Pao, is kind of…awkward. Sometimes it doesn’t translate. But in our scrutiny of Pao as a public figure, we must also examine ourselves. What the mirror of Ellen Pao shows is that we as a society have a long way to go before we fully accommodate women of all types, personalities, and levels of ambition. We need to work to give every woman a seat at the table, no matter who the table has historically been set up for. ●

Quelle: <a href="Ellen Pao’s Story Is Messier Than Her Book Makes It Sound“>BuzzFeed

Mark Zuckerberg Can’t Stop You From Reading This Because The Algorithms Have Already Won

BuzzFeed News; Getty Images

There’s a decent chance that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will see this story. It's relevant to his interests and nominally about him and the media and advertising industries his company has managed to upend and dominate. So the odds that it will appear in his Facebook News Feed are reasonably good. And should that happen, Zuckerberg might wince at this story’s headline or roll his eyes in frustration at its thesis. He might even cringe at the idea that others might see it on Facebook as well. And some almost certainly will. Because if Facebook works as designed, there's a chance this article will also be routed or shared to their News Feeds. And there's little the Facebook CEO can do to stop it, because he's not really in charge of his platform — the algorithms are.

This has been true for some time now, but it's been spotlit in recent months following a steady drumbeat of reports about Facebook as a channel for fake news and propaganda and, more recently, the company's admission that it sold roughly $100,000 worth of ads to a Russian troll farm in 2016. The gist of the coverage follows a familiar narrative for Facebook since Trump’s surprise presidential win: that social networks as vast and pervasive as Facebook are among the most important engines of social power, with unprecedented and unchecked influence. It’s part of a Big Tech political backlash that’s gained considerable currency in recent months — enough that the big platforms like Facebook are scrambling to avoid regulation and bracing themselves for congressional testimony.

Should Zuckerberg or Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey be summoned to Congress and peppered with questions about the inner workings of their companies, they may well be ill-equipped to answer them. Because while they might be in control of the broader operations of their respective companies, they do not appear to be fully in control of the automated algorithmic systems calibrated to drive engagement on Facebook and Twitter. And they have demonstrably proven that they lacked the foresight to imagine and understand the now clear real-world repercussions of those systems — fake news, propaganda, and dark targeted advertising linked to foreign interference in a US presidential election.

Among tech industry critics, every advancement from Alexa to AlphaGo to autonomous vehicles is winkingly dubbed as a harbinger of a dystopian future powered by artificial intelligence. Tech moguls like Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk and futurists like Stephen Hawking warn against nightmarish scenarios that vary from the destruction of the human race to the more likely threat that our lives will be subject to the whims of advanced algorithms that we’ve been happily feeding with our increasingly personal data. In 2014, Musk remarked that artificial intelligence is “potentially more dangerous than nukes” and warned that humanity might someday become a “biological boot loader for digital superintelligence.”

But if you look around, some of that dystopian algorithmic future has already arrived. Complex technological systems orchestrate many — if not most — of the consequential decisions in your life. We entrust our romantic lives to apps and algorithms — chances are you know somebody who’s swiped right or matched with a stranger and then slept with, dated, or married them. A portion of our daily contact with our friends and families is moderated via automated feeds painstakingly tailored to our interests. To navigate our cities, we’re jumping into cars with strangers assigned to us via robot dispatchers and sent down the quickest route to our destination based on algorithmic analysis of traffic patterns. Our fortunes are won and lost as the result of financial markets largely dictated by networks of high-frequency trading algorithms. Meanwhile, the always-learning AI-powered technology behind our search engines and our newsfeeds quietly shapes and reshapes the information we discover and even how we perceive it. And there’s mounting evidence that suggests it might even be capable of influencing the outcome of our elections.

Put another way, the algorithms increasingly appear to have more power to shape lives than the people who designed and maintain them. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, if only because Big Tech’s founders have been saying it for years now — in fact, it’s their favorite excuse — “we’re just a technology company” or “we’re only the platform.” And though it’s a convenient cop-out for the unintended consequences of their own creations, it’s also — from the perspectives of technological complexity and scale — kind of true. Facebook and Google and Twitter designed their systems, and they tweak them rigorously. But because the platforms themselves — the technological processes that inform decisions for billions of people every second of the day — are largely automated, they’re enormously difficult to monitor.

Facebook acknowledged this in its response to a ProPublica report this month that showed the company allowed advertisers to target users with anti-Semitic keywords. According to the report, Facebook’s anti-Semitic categories “were created by an algorithm rather than by people.”

And Zuckerberg suggested similar difficulties in monitoring just this week while addressing Facebook’s role in protecting elections. “Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you we're going to catch all bad content in our system,” he explained during a Facebook Live session last Thursday. “I wish I could tell you we're going to be able to stop all interference, but that wouldn't be realistic.” Beneath Zuckerberg’s video, a steady stream of commenters remarked on his speech. Some offered heart emojis of support. Others mocked his demeanor and delivery. Some accused him of treason. He was powerless to stop it.

Facebook

Facebook’s response to accusations about its role in the 2016 election since Nov. 9 bears this out, most notably Zuckerberg’s public comments immediately following the election that the claim that fake news influenced the US presidential election was “a pretty crazy idea.” In April, when Facebook released a white paper detailing the results of its investigation into fake news on its platform during the election, the company insisted it did not know the identity of the malicious actors using its network. And after recent revelations that Facebook had discovered Russian ads on its platform, the company maintained that as of April 2017, it was unaware of any Russian involvement. “When asked we said there was no evidence of Russian ads. That was true at the time,” Facebook told Mashable earlier this month.

Some critics of Facebook speak about the company’s leadership almost like an authoritarian government — a sovereign entity with virtually unchecked power and domineering ambition. So much so, in fact, that Zuckerberg is now frequently mentioned as a possible presidential candidate despite his public denials. But perhaps a better comparison might be the United Nations — a group of individuals endowed with the almost impossible responsibility of policing a network of interconnected autonomous powers. Just take Zuckerberg’s statement this week, in which he sounded strikingly like an embattled secretary-general: “It is a new challenge for internet communities to deal with nation-states attempting to subvert elections. But if that’s what we must do, we are committed to rising to the occasion,” he said.

“I wish I could tell you we're going to be able to stop all interference, but that wouldn't be realistic” isn’t just a carefully hedged pledge to do better, it's a tacit admission that the effort to do better may well be undermined by a system of algorithms and processes that the company doesn't fully understand or control at scale. Add to this Facebook's mission as a business — drive user growth; drive user engagement; monetize that growth and engagement; innovate in a ferociously competitive industry; oh, and uphold ideals of community and free speech — and you have a balance that’s seemingly impossible to maintain.

Facebook’s power and influence are vast, and the past year has shown that true understanding of the company’s reach and application is difficult; as CJR’s Pete Vernon wrote this week, “What other CEO can claim, with a straight face, the power to ‘proactively…strengthen the democratic process?’” But perhaps “power” is the wrong word to describe Zuckerberg's — and other tech moguls’ — position. In reality, it feels more like a responsibility. At the New York Times, Kevin Roose described it as Facebook’s Frankenstein problem — the company created a monster it can’t control. And in terms of responsibility, the metaphor is almost too perfect. After all, people always forget that Dr. Frankenstein was the creator, not the monster.

Quelle: <a href="Mark Zuckerberg Can’t Stop You From Reading This Because The Algorithms Have Already Won“>BuzzFeed

Facebook Scraps Plan To Create Non-Voting Stock Following Lawsuit

A day after Mark Zuckerberg's widely-criticized response to Russian use of Facebook to influence the 2016 US election, the Facebook founder and CEO was dealt yet another setback.

Facebook will halt the creation of “C Class” shares following a lawsuit, scrapping a plan to create a new class of non-voting shares for the company that would have allowed Zuckerberg to maintain control of Facebook while giving away his wealth via the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

Facebook's decision to scrap the creation of the new non-voting shares comes as Zuckerberg and Facebook are increasingly scrutinized by Congress. Yesterday, Zuckerberg announced Facebook would turn over approximately 3,000 Russia-bought ads to federal lawmakers.

The creation of C Class shares would have entailed a three for one stock split, where one of the three had voting power and the others did not. Zuckerberg could then sell his shares without voting power and maintain control of the company.

“Today, Facebook’s board of directors is announcing a proposal to create a new class of stock that will allow us to achieve both goals. I’ll be able to keep founder control of Facebook so we can continue to build for the long term, and Priscilla and I will be able to give our money to fund important work sooner,” Zuckerberg said in a blog post announcing the shares intended creation.

The suing shareholders claimed that splitting the stock into three would have made the shares less valuable, and demanded the court halt their creation. It never got that far.

Facebook's decision will prevent Zuckerberg from taking the stand, as he was expected to this upcoming Tuesday.

A spokeperson for Grant & Eisenhofer, the law firm representing the shareholders in the suit, told BuzzFeed News, “in an impressive win for Facebook shareholders, the social networking giant has announced it is dropping plans to issue a new class of stock that would have allowed CEO Mark Zuckerberg to retain voting control of the company’s shares even as he sold down his own stake as part of a pledge to give away most of his wealth during his lifetime.”

Developing…

Quelle: <a href="Facebook Scraps Plan To Create Non-Voting Stock Following Lawsuit“>BuzzFeed

Here's What You Need To Know About Uber Being Banned In London

What’s going on?

What's going on?

London taxi drivers block Whitehall in Westminster, central London, during a protest over the regulation of private hire cars using the Uber app.

Dominic Lipinski / PA Archive/PA Images

After a long campaign by London's black-cab drivers, Transport for London has decided not to renew Uber's licence to trade as a private hire business, effectively banning it from the capital.

Uber has been active in London since 2012 and has built a business with, it claims, 3.5 million customers and 40,000 drivers. TfL was considering granting it a new five-year licence. But instead, its last day in operation here will be 30 September. It has 21 days to appeal.

It's a huge moment in the evolution of the so-called gig economy and a big test of how governments and regulators can halt the fast-paced growth of consumer technology as it disrupts traditional industries. Here are some more questions, and some (brief) answers:

Why is this happening now?

Why is this happening now?

Laura Dale / PA Wire/PA Images

TfL has told Uber it won't get a new private hire operator licence – the thing it needs to continue to operate in the city – because the transport body considers the company “not fit and proper” to have one, due to “potential public safety and security implications”.

TfL came to this decision for four reasons:

  1. How Uber reports “serious criminal offences”.
  2. How its drivers obtain medical certificates.
  3. How the company manages criminal background checks for drivers.
  4. Its use of software called Greyball, which it allegedly used to stop City Hall officials from using the app to carry out checks on how the service operates.

In short, Uber is facing a ban because it broke the rules as set out in the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, not because of its treatment of drivers or passengers.

City Hall has been keen to step up the regulation of taxi and private car drivers since Khan's election – in December it hired 50 new officers to make sure drivers and companies were sticking to the rules and had all the right paperwork.

What is Greyball?

What is Greyball?

Dominic Lipinski / PA Archive/PA Images

The New York Times revealed in March this year that Uber was using a software program called Greyball to effectively stop local licensing officers from using the service.

The system was designed to stop people who might threaten violence against drivers, or competitors posing as ordinary passengers, from using the app. It worked by serving a fake version of the app that allowed cars to be hailed but automatically cancelled them before they arrived.

As TfL puts it, this was “software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.”

Uber announced it would stop using Greyball days after it was exposed, and Uber said on Friday it has never been used in the UK. But this wasn't enough to appease TfL or London mayor Sadiq Khan, who backs the decision.

The TfL decision is latest in a string of PR disasters for Uber in 2017, which included former CEO Travis Kalanick apologising for a lack of diversity after claims of workplace sexism and apologising again after being caught on camera yelling at an Uber driver who complained about changes to his contract costing him money.

What does this mean for other UK towns and cities?

What does this mean for other UK towns and cities?

An Uber bus parked at the Imperial War Museum in Manchester.

Eamonn & James Clarke / Eamonn and James Clarke/PA Images

Uber is in 40 towns and cities across the UK, and after today's decision…that won't change.

TfL is the licensing authority for taxis and private hire cars in London but has no jurisdiction outside it.

Transport for Greater Manchester is the biggest transport authority outside the capital, but it can't decide whether to ban Uber or not – that's up to individual councils, and so far they are all pretty relaxed about ride-sharing.

A TfGM spokesperson said: “Unlike Transport for London, TfGM does not license taxi or private hire vehicles, businesses or drivers. The licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles and their drivers is managed individually by each of the local authorities in Greater Manchester.”

Plus, Uber splits up its regional businesses into separate companies – it's just Uber London Limited that won't have a licence after next week.

Councillor Nigel Murphy, executive member for neighbourhoods on Manchester city council, told BuzzFeed News: “We have a robust licensing system in place in Manchester, which ensures that all of our licence holders are vetted to a high standard. Uber Britannia – which is a separate company to Uber London – is licensed to operate in Manchester until 2021 as a private hire operator.

“As is the case with all licensees, we will continue to monitor their compliance with the conditions of their licence to operate, while at the same time monitoring events as they unfold in the capital.”

What happens now?

What happens now?

Andrew Matthews / PA Archive/PA Images

Uber has said it will appeal the decision and is likely to end up in the courts. It can still operate while the appeal is pending – so there's no immediate end in sight and there could be a lengthy legal battle ahead.

And this is hardly the company's first encounter with city regulators.

Both Uber and Lyft, a similar service, pulled out of Austin, Texas, in 2016 after the city's voters rejected a proposal that would have allowed them to self-regulated background checks on drivers.

But they returned in July this year after a law change, and at lower prices than before too. It could be that the same thing will happen in London: Uber could agree to changes to its terms and services and then return later on.

Khan's statement on Friday, which said “any operator of private hire services in London needs to play by the rules”, appears to hint that Uber is only losing its licence because it broke the rules, not because of what critics see as inherent moral flaws in the company's model.

London isn't the first European city to protest at Uber's presence. The company was the subject of taxi drivers' anger in of violent protests in Paris in 2015; Uber said in March this year that it was pulling out of Denmark, where it had thousands of drivers, because of “unworkable” changes to taxi rules; and in April this year a court ruling banned the service in Italy.

Quelle: <a href="Here's What You Need To Know About Uber Being Banned In London“>BuzzFeed

How Apple Built An iPhone Camera That Makes Everyone A Professional Photographer

BuzzFeed News; Getty Images

This fall, when hundreds of gorgeous, expertly lit portrait shots of friends, relatives, and their pets inevitably begin to dominate your Instagram feed, feel free to thank 17th-century Dutch master painters like Vermeer.

It's the day after Apple's Sept. 12 iPhone event and Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller is enthusiastically explaining the origins of the Portrait Lighting feature in the new iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X. “We didn't just study portrait photography. We went all the way back to paint,” he explained.

Like the camera in every iPhone that preceded them, Apple is touting the cameras in the iPhone 8 Plus and the forthcoming iPhone X as its best ever. This year the company is particularly proud of these, which boast a marquee “Portrait Lighting” feature that brings a range of professional-looking effects to the already great photos the dual camera system on the iPhone 7 Plus is capable of taking.

“We didn't just study portrait photography. We went all the way back to paint.”

This year's leap, however, feels particularly meaningful. A number of early reviews of the iPhone 8 obsess over the camera — TechCrunch, for example, chose to review the phone exclusively as a camera. And there's a decent argument to be made that the enhancements to the camera systems in the 8 Plus and the X are some of the biggest upgrades in the new line. The camera's effects don't rely on filters. They're the result of Apple's new dual camera system working in concert with machine learning to sense a scene, map it for depth, and then change lighting contours over the subject. It's all done in real time, and you can even preview the results thanks to the company’s enormously powerful new A11 Bionic chip. The result, when applied to Apple scale, has the power to be transformative for modern photography, with millions of amateur shots suddenly professionalized. In many ways it's the fullest realization of the democratization of high-quality imagery that the company has been working toward since the iPhone 4.

And to get it right, Apple relied on what it does best: enthusiastic study and deconstruction of the art form it wishes to mimic and advance. In the case of the iPhones 8 Plus and X, this meant pouring over the way others have used lighting throughout history — Richard Avedon, Annie Leibovitz, Vermeer.

“If you look at the Dutch Masters and compare them to the paintings that were being done in Asia, stylistically they're different,” Johnnie Manzari, a designer on Apple's Human Interface Team, says. “So we asked why are they different? And what elements of those styles can we recreate with software?”

Senior Reporter Alex Kantrowitz emotes in “Stage Light.”

BuzzFeed News

And then Apple went into the studio and attempted to do just that. “We spent a lot of time shining light on people and moving them around — a lot of time,” Manzari says. “We had some engineers trying to understand the contours of a face and how we could apply lighting to them through software, and we had other silicon engineers just working to make the process super-fast. We really did a lot of work.”

It's all a bit much, but it hints at the rigorous — perhaps even monomaniac — attention to detail that works for Apple when it is paired with the company's technological resources, like machine learning. Describing the design process, Schiller takes pains to note the collaboration between the esoteric studying and the raw tech.

“There’s the Augmented Reality team, saying, 'Hey, we need more from the camera because we want to make AR a better experience and the camera plays a role in that,'” Schiller says. “And the team that's creating Face ID, they need camera technology and hardware, software, sensors, and lenses to support on-device biometric identification. And so there are many roles the camera plays, either as a primary thing — to take a picture — or as a support thing, to help unlock your phone or enable an AR experience. And so there's a great deal of work between all the teams and all of these elements.”

“It's never just 'let's make a better camera.' It's what camera can we create? What can we contribute to photography?”

And when all these sides work together there's the potential to create a new paradigm for phone-based photography. When I ask Schiller about the evolution of the iPhone's camera, he acknowledges that the company has been deliberately and incrementally working towards a professional-caliber camera. But he quickly follows up with an addendum that tells you most everything you need to know about Apple and camera design: “It's never just 'let's make a better camera,'” he says. “It's what camera can we create? What can we contribute to photography?”

The company's ubiquitous “Shot on iPhone” advertising campaign, a series of iPhone-shot Time magazine covers, and the professional photographers using the iPhone as they would a Canon or Leica already bear witness to what it can accomplish. And the debut of the updated dual lens camera systems in the iPhone 8 Plus and the iPhone X seems likely to reiterate it. While in beta, Portrait Lighting generally works well — miraculously well in some instances. My lone disappointment with it was failing to pull off a “Girl With a Pearl Earring”-style Stage Light portrait of my dopey dog Fergus. Turns out, portrait mode is designed for people.

Fashion and art photographer Kevin Lu (@sweatengine on Instagram) says he's been legitimately impressed by it, despite the occasional glitch. “It really opens the door to a lot of possibilities for me,” he observes.

Apple

What Apple's doing is using its software to light a photo as a lighting person might and, more broadly, taking away the complexity of how the fancy cameras you’d typically need to do that stuff work.

“We're in a time where the greatest advances in camera technology are happening as much in the software as in the hardware,” Schiller says. “And that obviously plays to Apple's strengths over traditional camera companies.”

But isn't something lost when you use software to simplify and automate a process that's historically been artistic? After all, there's something a bit dystopian feeling about pushing a button and essentially flattening the playing field between professionals and amateurs.

“This is not about dumbing things down,” Manzari observes, noting that as devices become more professional, they often become more intimidating. “This is about accessibility. It's about helping people take advantage of their own creativity.”

Apple

Manzari's point is that there are a lot of great photographers who are not professionally trained. They don't need or want to deal with an array of lenses and tools to calibrate focus and depth of field when they're shooting pictures. Nor should they have to. So why not take all the stuff away and give them something that can take a great shot?

“I think the attempt was less to mimic any one specific style and more to try to touch on the range of styles that exist, so we can try to find something for everybody, from core elements of style, rather than a particular design point,” Schiller says when I observe that “Stage Light” really does look like Vermeer, when it blacks out a subject's background.

“Truthfully, it wasn’t ‘make this one look like X,’” he says. “It was more, ‘let’s get enough range so that everyone has some different choices for different situations that cover key use cases.’ So it's learning from the way others have used lighting throughout history, and around the world.”

It's worth noting that Apple has been working towards this in ways that are far less flashy than Portrait Lighting. The cameras on the 8 Plus and the X, for example, detect snow as a situation and automatically make adjustments to white balance, exposure, and whatnot so you don't need to worry about it. “It's all seamless; the camera just does what it needs to,” says Schiller. “The software knows how to take care of it for you. There are no settings.”

There are no settings. In other words, yes, “it just works.”

Perhaps none of this should come as a surprise. Not only has Apple slowly been building toward this level of photography with the iPhone for the better part of a decade, but the blurring of the lines between professionalism and amateurism — laying a friendly, simple veneer atop dizzying and complex technology — has been a hallmark of Apple's innovation since its inception.

“What does it mean to be a photographer?”

It's the principle behind the company's creation of a computer desktop and drag-and-drop file folder organization system. And it's the same ethos behind programs like iMovie, iPhoto, and GarageBand, which gave anyone with an interest and a bit of creativity tools that looked almost like the pros'. Inside the new iPhone cameras that's all taken a step farther. No skeuomorphic interfaces to navigate. Just a button, some lenses, and any number of complex algorithms and processors. And some striking results. Vermeer-esque, even.

“We think the best way to build a camera is by asking simple, foundational questions about photography,” Manzari says. “What does it mean to be a photographer? What does it mean to capture a memory? If you start there — and not with a long list of possible features to check off — you often end up with something better. When you take away the complexity of how the camera works, the technology just disappears. Then people can apply all your creativity to that moment you're capturing. And you get some incredible photographs.”

Quelle: <a href="How Apple Built An iPhone Camera That Makes Everyone A Professional Photographer“>BuzzFeed