WebProNews

Tag: Social Media

  • Reddit Hires Drew Vollero As First CFO On Road To IPO

    Reddit Hires Drew Vollero As First CFO On Road To IPO

    Reddit has hired Andrew (Drew) Vollero as its first CFO as the company prepares to go public.

    Reddit has been steadily working towards an IPO, recently becoming more transparent about its user base. In December, the company reported it had 52 million daily users in October. Previously, the company had only reported its monthly user base.

    The company is now taking the next step, hiring Vollero to help it prepare to go public. Vollero comes from Allied Universal, the largest US security and facility services firm. Prior to his work at Allied Universal, Vollero was Snap’s first CFO during its IPO.

    “Drew is an industry thought leader, who brings a track record of building a global finance organization for high growth companies,” said Steve Huffman, co-founder and CEO of Reddit. “He will be a tremendous addition to our Executive Team, as Reddit continues accelerating our business and user growth.”

    Reddit is much smaller than its social media rivals, but its growth rate far exceeds them. This makes it an attractive option for advertisers, and could set it up for a public offering sooner rather than later.

  • Slack Joins Chorus of Companies Wanting to Challenge Clubhouse

    Slack Joins Chorus of Companies Wanting to Challenge Clubhouse

    Slack is the latest company looking to cash in on Clubhouse’s popularity, with plans to include similar features in its own app.

    Clubhouse is an audio-chat social media platform that is currently invite-only. The app has experienced a significant surge in popularity, with some of the biggest tech news debuting in Clubhouse chats.

    Not surprisingly, major tech companies are wanting to capitalize on Clubhouse’s success by rolling out their own competing apps, or adding its functionality to their existing ones.

    Slack appears to be headed for the latter option, according to CEO Stewart Butterfield, who broke the news in a Clubhouse chat, one that included Clubhouse CEO Paul Davison.

    “I’ve always believed the ‘good artists copy, great artists steal’ thing, so we’re just building Clubhouse into Slack, essentially,” said Butterfield.

    Needless to say, Butterfield being willing to challenge Clubhouse — while in a Clubhouse chat with the Clubhouse CEO — caught people’s attention.

    The news also caught the attention of Bret Taylor, Salesforce CEO and Butterfield’s future boss once their merge goes through.

  • Twitter Testing In-Line YouTube Viewing

    Twitter Testing In-Line YouTube Viewing

    Twitter is testing a new feature that will let users watch YouTube videos in-line, without leaving the Twitter conversation.

    Traditionally, clicking on a YouTube link in Twitter took a user to the YouTube video, leaving the Twitter thread behind. With Twitter’s new feature, users will be able to watch the video without leaving the thread.

    The feature obviously has value to Twitter, as it keeps users from leaving, but it’s also a nice feature for Twitter users as well.

  • India Wants to Block WhatsApp Data Change

    India Wants to Block WhatsApp Data Change

    India is asking a court to block WhatsApp from sharing data with Facebook, saying the change violates local laws.

    Facebook made waves in January with an announcement it was changing how data was shared between WhatsApp and other Facebook-owned companies. While the immediate backlashforced Facebook to delay its plans, it did not change them, only pushed them back. Ultimately, users who failed to accept the new terms would still lose access to their accounts.

    India is now pushing back, saying the change violates local laws, according to TechCrunch. The government is taking the matter to court in an effort to block Facebook’s actions.

    “Social media in recent years has been used by billions of people around the world and millions of Indians today are dependent on WhatsApp. Therefore, information that is generally personal is shared at an enormous level. This information is susceptible to being misused if the social media giant decides to either sell or exploit the information, sensitive to the users, to any third party,” said the government’s filing.

    It remains to be seen if the Indian government will be successful. If it is, however, it could set a precedent other countries will follow, given how unpopular the change has been.

  • Facebook Cracking Down on Posts Praising Atlanta Shooting

    Facebook Cracking Down on Posts Praising Atlanta Shooting

    In the latest test of its moderation efforts, Facebook is cracking down on posts praising the Atlanta shooting.

    Eight people were killed in shootings at three spas in the Atlanta area, apparently perpetrated by a single suspect. In the wake of the tragedy, it appears some people just can’t stop being the worst version of themselves, posting hateful comments purported to be from the alleged shooter’s Facebook account.

    Facebook has since confirmed the account was a fake and has taken it down, although screenshots of the post have already circulated.

    “We’ve confirmed that these screenshots are fake and we’re removing them from the platform for violating our policies,” a Facebook spokesperson told Mashable.

    Facebook is also designating the shooting a “violating event.” As a result, Facebook will remove any and all posts praising the shooting, or voicing support for it in any way.

    While it’s hard for any normal person to understand how sane human beings can praise or support a mass shooting, Facebook deserves credit for moving as quickly as it is to combat any such comments.

  • Google and Microsoft Square Off Over News Industry

    Google and Microsoft Square Off Over News Industry

    Google and Microsoft are duking it out over the future of the news industry, at a time when both companies are under scrutiny.

    Google and Facebook are vehemently opposed to a new bill that would level the playing field between news publishers and the search engines and social media platforms they rely on. Both companies initially opposed similar legislation in Australia, before finally acquiescing.

    Unlike Google and Facebook, Microsoft has supported Australia’s regulators, and thrown its weight behind the efforts in the US. In written testimony for the congressional hearing, Microsoft President Brad Smith laid out the company’s stand:

    Third, we need the government to act. This in part is because of the indispensable role the free press plays in our democracy and because progress in resuscitating news and journalism back to health is, at best, spotty. It is also because the problems that beset journalism today are caused in part by a fundamental lack of competition in the search and ad tech markets that are controlled by Google. As a result, there is a persistent and structural imbalance between a technology gatekeeper and the free press, particularly small and independent news organizations. This makes it very unlikely that the economic transformation needed to restore journalism to health can succeed at scale without new legislation and government support.

    As noted above, this is not to make a statement about whether Google has acted unlawfully. We respect the company’s sustained creativity, investments, and determination. But as we learned first-hand from Microsoft’s own experience two decades ago, when a company’s success creates side effects that adversely impact a market and our society, the problem should not be ignored. And this typically requires government action.

    Google didn’t take the criticism lying down, issuing its own statement that took a shot at Microsoft:

    We also believe that this important debate should be about the substance of the issue, and not derailed by naked corporate opportunism … which brings us to Microsoft’s sudden interest in this discussion. We respect Microsoft’s success and we compete hard with them in cloud computing, search, productivity apps, video conferencing, email and many other areas. Unfortunately, as competition in these areas intensifies, they are reverting to their familiar playbook of attacking rivals and lobbying for regulations that benefit their own interests. They are now making self-serving claims and are even willing to break the way the open web works in an effort to undercut a rival. And their claims about our business and how we work with news publishers are just plain wrong.

    This latest attack marks a return to Microsoft’s longtime practices. And it’s no coincidence that Microsoft’s newfound interest in attacking us comes on the heels of the SolarWinds attack and at a moment when they’ve allowed tens of thousands of their customers — including government agencies in the U.S., NATO allies, banks, nonprofits, telecommunications providers, public utilities, police, fire and rescue units, hospitals and, presumably, news organizations — to be actively hacked via major Microsoft vulnerabilities. Microsoft was warned about the vulnerabilities in their system, knew they were being exploited, and are now doing damage control while their customers scramble to pick up the pieces from what has been dubbed the Great Email Robbery. So maybe it’s not surprising to see them dusting off the old diversionary Scroogled playbook.

    Needless to say, the two companies aren’t mincing any words, although Google’s words were far more pointed, accusing Microsoft of a self-serving attempt to take scrutiny off of its recent security issues.

    The coming weeks are sure to be interesting as the two companies continue to square off.

  • Instagram Unveils Live Rooms, Ability to Livestream With Three People

    Instagram Unveils Live Rooms, Ability to Livestream With Three People

    Instagram has introduced Live Rooms, doubling the capacity of its Live on Instagram feature.

    Instagram previously allowed creators to go live with a single individual, meaning a livestream only had a total of two people in it. With Live Rooms, creators can now go live with up to three people, bringing the total participants to four.

    We hope that doubling up on Live will open up more creative opportunities — start a talk show, host a jam session or co-create with other artists, host more engaging Q&As or tutorials with your following, or just hang out with more of your friends.

    Live Rooms is designed to help creators monetize their social media presence even more, building on existing features. The company recently made it possible for Live viewers to buy badges to support their favorite creators. Viewers can also take advantage of the Shopping and Live Fundraisers features.

    Instagram says it is working on additional options, such as moderator controls and audio features that it hopes will continue to aid content creators.

  • TikTok Settles Privacy Suit For $92 Million

    TikTok Settles Privacy Suit For $92 Million

    TikTok has agreed to pay $92 million to settle a lawsuit in the US over its privacy practices.

    TikTok quickly rose to be one of the most popular social media platforms in the world, and was the first Chinese app to gain its level of worldwide success. With that success, however, came greater a degree of scrutiny. The app has repeatedly been accused of violating child privacy, uploading videos to China without user consent and being a threat to national security.

    The company has settled a lawsuit filed by TikTok users in the U.S. District Court in Illinois. Illinois has already established itself as a privacy haven, with Facebook recently settling a lawsuit filed against it in the state.

    “While we disagree with the assertions, rather than go through lengthy litigation, we’d like to focus our efforts on building a safe and joyful experience for the TikTok community,” TikTok said Thursday, according to NBC News.

    The settlement requires court approval.

  • US Bill Would Allow Small News Publishers to Band Together Against Social Media

    US Bill Would Allow Small News Publishers to Band Together Against Social Media

    A new bill would pave the way for small news publishers to work together to negotiate better deals with tech companies.

    Under current US law, companies are severely limited in their ability to organize for the purpose of price negotiation. Any such attempt is a violation of antitrust laws, and falls under price fixing. Companies like Google and Facebook have been able to use that to their advantage, forcing smaller news publishers to accept terms they’re not happy with.

    A new bipartisan bill seeks to address this issue, by waving price fixing restrictions for small news publishers. This would give them the ability to legally band together and present a united front in negotiations.

    Representative Ken Buck, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel, told Reuters the first such bill will be unveiled within weeks.

    “The biggest threat to the free market economy is big tech and it (potential legislation) should be fairly tightly focused on that,” Buck said.

    Facebook is currently in a scuffle with the Australian news media over a proposed law that would force the company to pay for news it links to. In response, Facebook has blocked Australian consumers and news organizations from posting any news, a move that has been widely condemned.

    The US and other countries are clearly concerned with avoiding a similar outcome.

  • Facebook Faces Fallout From Australian News Ban

    Facebook Faces Fallout From Australian News Ban

    Facebook is already facing fallout from its decision to block Australian news sources, with government sites impacted and calls of bullying.

    Facebook took the unexpected step of completely blocking Australian customers from posting any news articles as a result of proposed legislation that would force the company to pay for such links. Google is similarly impacted by the legislation, but has chosen to start working out deals with news publishers.

    The social media giant is already facing backlash as a result of its decision. ABC News reports that news posts started disappearing from various government agency sites, including the Bureau of Meteorology. Facebook says that was a mistake, as government agencies should not be impacted, and has restored some pages already.

    “As the law does not provide clear guidance on the definition of news content, we have taken a broad definition in order to respect the law as drafted,” a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement.

    The same ABC News report also highlights the Australian scientific community’s concern over Facebook’s actions.

    “For Facebook to block access to the feeds of trusted science and health organisations in Australia during a pandemic and bushfire season is irresponsible and dangerous,” said Science & Technology Australia chief executive Misha Schubert.

    “At a time when the company is taking steps to tackle misinformation on its platform, it’s concerning it has chosen to silence some of this nation’s leading scientific voices.”

    Meanwhile, at least one UK lawmaker is calling the company out for being a bully and says it’s time to get tough, according to Reuters.

    “This action – this bully boy action – that they’ve undertaken in Australia will I think ignite a desire to go further amongst legislators around the world,” said Julian Knight, chair of the British Parliament’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

    “We represent people and I’m sorry but you can’t run bulldozer over that – and if Facebook thinks it’ll do that it will face the same long-term ire as the likes of big oil and tobacco.”

    When we covered Facebook’s decision yesterday, we said: “Given the scrutiny Facebook is already under worldwide, playing hardball with the Australian government is a risky maneuver that may end up backfiring.”

    It would appear Facebook’s risky maneuver is, indeed, backfiring.

  • TikTok Runs Afoul of European Consumer Law

    TikTok Runs Afoul of European Consumer Law

    TikTok has found itself in trouble with the European Consumer Organisation BEUC, as a result of multiple infractions against EU consumer laws.

    TikTok has faced repeated criticism for breaches of privacy, especially in regard to the privacy of minor children. The company has also faced ongoing criticism, scrutiny and lawsuits over its privacy practices in general.

    The latest troubles come from the EU, as TikTok is accused of violating several EU consumer laws, according to the BEUC, including a failure to properly protect children.

    The BEUC’s investigation found that a number of TikTok’s ‘Terms of Service’ were unfair, ambiguous and favoring TikTok to users’ detriment. The same is true of the company’s copyright terms, which give TikTok “an irrevocable right to use, distribute and reproduce the videos published by users, without remuneration.”

    The BEUC took issue with how TikTok administers the coins people can purchase to reward their favorite content creators, retaining too much control over exchange rates.

    The company’s handling of user data is also misleading, with TikTok not properly informing users — especially children — of how and why their data is being collected and how it’s being used.

    Most egregiously, the company is failing to protect children and minors from potentially harmful content and and hidden advertising.

    The BEUC wants “authorities to launch a comprehensive investigation into TikTok’s policies and practices and to ensure that TikTok respects EU consumer rights. The company should properly inform consumers about its business model and data processing activities and stop imposing unfair terms and practices on its users. TikTok should also stop keeping its users in the dark about the financial consequences of buying virtual gifts for their favourite idols and improve the fairness of this service. In particular children and teenagers, who form an important part of Tik Tok’s audience must be adequately protected regarding their exposure to marketing, hidden advertising and inappropriate content.”

    Given the EU’s strong privacy and consumer legislation, TikTok’s run of fast and loose privacy practices is likely coming to an end.

  • Facebook Oversight Board Open to Other Platforms Joining

    Facebook Oversight Board Open to Other Platforms Joining

    The Facebook Oversight Board has a nearly impossible task but, if it succeeds, it’s open to other platforms joining its efforts.

    The Facebook Oversight Board has been called Facebook’s “Supreme Court” by Mark Zuckerberg. As such, the Oversight Board deals with Facebook’s most challenging issues, reviewing various content moderation decisions to see if the action taken was warranted. The decisions include the upcoming review of Facebook’s decision to ban Donald Trump’s account.

    The Oversight Board has its sights set higher, including the possibility of serving in that capacity for other platforms. In a conversation hosted by the Carnegie Endowment, via TechCrunch, former Prime Minister of Denmark Helle Thorning-Schmidt and current Oversight Board co-chair outlined the possibility.

    If the project is a success “other platforms and other tech companies are more than welcome to join and be part of the oversight that we will be able to provide,” said Thorning-Schmidt.

    It remains to be seen if the Oversight Board will succeed and, even if it does, other companies may be hesitant to trust their moderation to a Facebook entity. Newly introduced legislation to reform Section 230 could also impact the Oversight Board’s long-term duties.

  • Senators Want to Reform Section 230 Protections

    Senators Want to Reform Section 230 Protections

    Senators have introduced a bill to limit the protection afforded to tech companies by Section 230 and reform the legislation.

    Sens. Mark R. Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar have announced Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism and Consumer Harms (SAFE TECH) Act in an effort to reform Section 230. Section 230 is the law that protects social media platforms and other internet companies from being legally liable for what users post on their site.

    The law has increasingly come under fire, with many saying it fosters the unhealthy, toxic culture that has come to define many platforms. What’s more, social media companies have started taking a more active role in moderating the content on their platforms. While the move has been welcomes by many, the fact that companies are actively moderating undermines the argument that they need protection from user-posted content.

    “When Section 230 was enacted in 1996, the Internet looked very different than it does today. A law meant to encourage service providers to develop tools and policies to support effective moderation has instead conferred sweeping immunity on online providers even when they do nothing to address foreseeable, obvious and repeated misuse of their products and services to cause harm,” said Sen. Warner, a former technology entrepreneur and the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “Section 230 has provided a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card to the largest platform companies even as their sites are used by scam artists, harassers and violent extremists to cause damage and injury. This bill doesn’t interfere with free speech – it’s about allowing these platforms to finally be held accountable for harmful, often criminal behavior enabled by their platforms to which they have turned a blind eye for too long.”

    “Section 230 was passed in 1996 to incentivize then-nascent internet companies to voluntarily police illegal and harmful content posted by their users. Now, twenty-five years later, the law allows some of the biggest companies in the world turn a blind eye while their platforms are used to violate civil and human rights, stalk and harass people, and defraud consumers—all without accountability,” Sen. Hirono said. “The SAFE TECH Act brings Section 230 into the modern age by creating targeted exceptions to the law’s broad immunity. Internet platforms must either address the serious harms they impose on society or face potential civil liability.”

    “We need to be asking more from big tech companies, not less. How they operate has a real-life effect on the safety and civil rights of Americans and people around the world, as well as our democracy. Holding these platforms accountable for ads and content that can lead to real-world harm is critical, and this legislation will do just that,” said Sen. Klobuchar.

    Republicans have been calling for changes to Section 230 for some time. With three Democratic senators now proposing change, it’s a good chance Section 230’s days as we know it are numbered.

  • Clearview AI Dealt Blow in Canada, Called Illegal

    Clearview AI Dealt Blow in Canada, Called Illegal

    Clearview AI has been dealt its biggest blow yet, with Canada calling the app illegal and demanding it delete photos of Canadian citizens.

    Clearview AI made headlines last year when the depth of its activities were uncovered. The company scraped photos from countless websites, including the top social media platforms, and amassed a database of billions of photos. Clearview then sold access to that database to law enforcement officials all over the country.

    Despite its claims, however, Clearview wasn’t the responsible purveyor of information it claimed to be. Instead, it gave investors, clients and friends access to the company’s database for their own personal uses, including entertainment. The company also began expanding internationally, working on deals with authoritarian regimes.

    Despite multiple investigations in the US, it appears Canada has taken the strongest stance yet, declaring the software illegal.

    “Clearview sells a facial recognition tool that allows law enforcement and commercial organizations to match photographs of unknown people against a massive databank of 3 billion images, scraped from the Internet,” said Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada. “The vast majority of these people have never been, and will never be, implicated in any crime.

    “What Clearview does is mass surveillance and it is illegal. It is an affront to individuals’ privacy rights and inflicts broad-based harm on all members of society, who find themselves continually in a police lineup. This is completely unacceptable.”

    Clearview tried to make the claim that it did not need permission to collect the photos it uses, since they’re already posted on social media. The Canadian government disagreed, since Clearview’s purpose for collecting the photos differed from the reason people uploaded them.

    As a result, the investigation came to the following conclusion:

    We recommended that Clearview: (i) cease offering its facial recognition tool to clients in Canada; (ii) cease the collection, use and disclosure of images and biometric facial arrays collected from individuals in Canada; and (iii) delete images and biometric facial arrays collected from individuals in Canada in its possession.

    While the government doesn’t yet have the authority to enforce the investigation’s recommendations, Therrien is hopeful Parliament will take them under advisement when it considers upcoming privacy legislation.

    “The company essentially claims that individuals who placed or permitted their images to be placed on the Internet lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in such images, that the information was publicly available, and that the company’s appropriate business interests and freedom of expression should prevail,” Therrien added.

    “My colleagues and I think these arguments must be rejected. As federal Commissioner, I hope that Parliament considers this case as it reviews Bill C-11, the proposed new private-sector privacy legislation. I hope Parliamentarians will send a clear message that where, as here, there is a conflict between commercial objectives and privacy protection, Canadians’ privacy rights should prevail.”

  • Mozilla CEO Calls For More Transparency to Combat Online Hate

    Mozilla CEO Calls For More Transparency to Combat Online Hate

    In the wake of President Trump’s ban from Twitter, Mozilla CEO Mitchell Baker is calling for more transparency from internet platforms.

    Twitter banned Trump permanently following an initial 12-hour ban. Trump is widely blamed by his political opponents for inciting the insurrection at the US Capitol earlier this week, and Twitter banned him over fears his recent tweets would incite further violence that appears to be planned for January 17.

    Facebook and Instagram similarly banned Trump for the remainder of his presidency, citing their accusation that he had a role in inciting the insurrection.

    Mozilla CEO Mitchell Baker is calling for companies to do more to combat hate and violence.

    But as reprehensible as the actions of Donald Trump are, the rampant use of the internet to foment violence and hate, and reinforce white supremacy is about more than any one personality. Donald Trump is certainly not the first politician to exploit the architecture of the internet in this way, and he won’t be the last. We need solutions that don’t start after untold damage has been done.

    Baker calls for platforms to take the following steps:

    Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.

    Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.

    Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.

    Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.

    In the aftermath of Wednesday, tech companies are increasingly looking to strike a balance between free speech and not enabling hate and violence. Baker’s suggestions may provide a way forward for many such companies.

  • Twitter Bans Trump Permanently

    Twitter Bans Trump Permanently

    Twitter has banned President Trump from its platform permanently, following an initial ban of 12 hours.

    Social media platforms have been under increased fire in the way of Wednesday’s insurrection at the US Capitol. While Twitter and Facebook have long been slow to ban political figures in the name of public interest, many critics and experts have blamed Trump’s rhetoric for inciting the insurrectionists. As a result, calls mounted for Twitter and Facebook to take more aggressive action to ban Trump and cut him off from his preferred method of communication.

    Facebook announced on Thursday that it would ban Trump for the remainder of his presidency. In the post announcing the decision, CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained the reasons.

    We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.

    Twitter has now taken an even stronger stance, banning Trump permanently from its platform.

    https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1347684877634838528?s=20

    The company explains its decision-making process in detail in a blog post, outlining the company’s belief that Trump’s recent tweets violate its Glorification of Violence Policy.

    As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.

    Social media firms are under increased scrutiny for their role in society’s ills, with many politicians on both sides of the aisle wanting the protections afforded by Section 230 rolled back.

    It remains to be seen if Twitter and Facebook’s actions will be enough to stave off significant regulatory changes.

  • Social Media Under Fresh Fire After Mob Storms Capitol

    Social Media Under Fresh Fire After Mob Storms Capitol

    Social media is under fresh fire in the wake of what is being called an “insurrection,” after a mob stormed the US Capitol.

    The US Congress met Wednesday to tally the Electoral College votes. Lawmakers were interrupted, however, when a mob stormed the Capitol, forcing lawmakers to shelter-in-place and eventually evacuate. In the aftermath of the unprecedented scene that unfolded, much of the attention turned to President Trump and the role he played in inciting the mob.

    At the same time, attention also turned to social media companies that have increasingly been criticized for allowing hate speech and radical content on their platforms. In many cases, social media platforms allow public officials more leeway than private citizens’ in the name of public interest.

    It appears today’s events, however, were the final straw, with Twitter banning President Trump for 12 hours and Facebook locking his account for 24. Twitter removed three of Trump’s tweets and Facebook put up warning labels. Twitter has also said its ban will become permanent if there are any further infractions against its policies.

    https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1346970431039934464?s=20

    https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1346970432017031178?s=20

    In spite of those actions, some are saying the platforms have not gone far enough. In recent months, Section 230 — the law that protects social media platforms from legal liability for what their users post — has drawn attention from politicians on both sides of the aisle. Many politicians, as well as industry experts, believe it is time to revisit the law and repeal it in favor of regulation that combines freedom of speech with civic responsibility.

    In view of yesterday’s events, we may have witnessed Section 230’s dying breath and, with it, the death knell of the sweeping immunity social media platforms have enjoyed.

  • Facebook On Target For 50% Market Penetration Latin America

    Facebook On Target For 50% Market Penetration Latin America

    Facebook’s growth may have slowed in recent years, but the pandemic is driving it to new heights in Latin America.

    As Facebook has achieved market saturation in many parts of the world, its growth has naturally slowed. As Business Insider points out, however, the pandemic has been a significant growth factor for Facebook, especially in Latin America.

    “In Latin America specifically, we now expect the number of Facebook users to grow by 8.8% in 2020 to 339.5 million, up from 7.3% in 2019 and more than triple the growth we originally expected for this year (2.8%),” writes BI’s Daniel Carnahan. “And for the first time, Facebook’s penetration in Latin America will reach over half of the population, at 53%.”

    It remains to be seen if Facebook can sustain its growth rate, and seems likely it will not once things return to normal. Nonetheless, its growth rate in Latin America is good news at a time when the company is under siege from multiple angles.

  • Twitter Works to Make Advertisers Feel Safe

    Twitter Works to Make Advertisers Feel Safe

    Twitter is taking steps to ensure advertisers feel safe on its platform, a vital step for the company’s long-term growth.

    One of the biggest challenges social media companies face is balancing individuals’ right to express themselves with companies’ efforts to protect their brand. Facebook ran afoul of advertisers in June when the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found many ads from high-profile companies placed alongside content that would be deemed racist and offensive. As a result, Coca-Cola, The Hershey Company, Levi Strauss & Co, Verizon, Mozilla, Upwork, REI, Patagonia, Ben & Jerry’s, The North Face and Eddie Bauer were just a few of the companies that pulled their advertising from the platform.

    Twitter is working to prevent that kind of scenario, with a new focus on brand safety, according to Business Insider.

    “We want every brand to feel confident advertising on Twitter,” said Sarah Personette, Twitter VP of global client solutions, in an interview. “Brand safety is a critical component to that.”

    The company has committed to audits by the Media Rating Council. Certification by the MRC is considered the gold standard, providing some assurance the platform’s systems are operating without bias. Twitter is also planning to announce third-party partnerships in the coming weeks, aimed at promoting brand safety.

    At a time when Twitter is working to stay relevant amid the onslaught of newer platforms, and is trying to walk the moderation tightrope, this is a critical step for the company’s success.

  • Section 230’s Future Is Shaky…Even With a Biden/Harris Administration

    Section 230’s Future Is Shaky…Even With a Biden/Harris Administration

    The controversial Section 230, protecting social media companies, may be under threat even with the incoming Biden/Harris administration.

    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects online platforms from being legally responsible for the content their users post. This has, in some ways, given rise to the toxic culture often associated with social media, as there are not strong incentives for companies to crack down on hate speech, cyberbullying and the like.

    While companies have slowly began to self-moderate, it has increasingly become a murky situation. On the one hand, some critics have praised Facebook, Twitter and others for beginning to crack down on some content, while others have decried their attempts as censorship. These accusations have come from the very heights of government, as President Trump has alternated between using Twitter as his preferred communication platform and blasting the company when it flags his posts containing misinformation. As a result, most recently, Trump has even threatened to veto a defense spending bill unless Section 230 is repealed.

    The situation is further complicated by the very fact that social media companies have begun moderating content. Critics argue the companies no longer need, nor should have, the protections of Section 230 since they’ve already begun to self-moderate—the very thing they weren’t legally required to do.

    While Trump has been clamoring for the repeal of Section 230, some had thought a new administration might take a different approach. It appears, however, that Section 230’s future may still be uncertain.

    At a virtual book launch hosted by Georgetown Law, Bruce Reed—who served as a top tech advisor for President-elect Joe Biden during his campaign—made the case for changes to Section 230.

    I think there’s an emerging consensus that it’s long past time to hold the big social media platforms accountable for what’s published on their platforms, the way we do newspaper publishers and broadcasters.

    Needless to say, Reed’s comments are non-binding. In the interview he even goes so far as to say that he doesn’t speak for the new administration’s tech policy. Nonetheless, his observations come from years serving as a close associate of Biden, both as a campaign tech advisor and as his chief of staff during his time as vice-president.

    Therefore, while non-binding, Reed’s comments may very well indicate change is on the horizon for Section 230.

  • Reddit Reveals It Has 52 Million Daily Users

    Reddit Reveals It Has 52 Million Daily Users

    Reddit has reported it has 52 million daily users for October, shining a light on data it has never before released.

    Traditionally, Reddit has only reported its monthly active users, coming in at 430 million a year ago. That represented a 30% uptick, year-over-year. Now, however, the company told the Wall Street Journal it has 52 million daily users.

    “We’re sharing [daily active users] for the first time as a more accurate reflection of our user growth and to be more in-line with industry reporting,” said Jen Wong, Reddit COO. “We’re focused on daily usership and increasing this number as we continue to grow our community and scale our advertising business.”

    Although its daily user count it much smaller, Reddit’s growth rate far surpasses that of its rivals, coming it at 44% year-over-year. In contrast, according to their latest quarterly reports, Facebook’s growth rate came in at 12%, Snap at 18% and Twitter at 29%.

    Reddit’s ad revenue grew by 83% year-over-year in the third quarter. It’s a safe bet advertisers will continue to flock to the platform with the release of these numbers.