Category: Social issues involving home computing

How to redefine media sources now we are online

TenPlay Website screenshot with some FAST channels offered by the Ten Network.

Traditional media like the Ten Network commercial free-to-air TV establishing an online presence

I often hear remarks about people, especially youth and young adults, not using traditional media like newspapers or broadcast media for their news. Rather they are using social media or other online sources as news sources and reading their news from a smartphone or tablet.

This has been driven by the “cord-cutting” issue within the USA especially where younger people are cancelling pay-TV subscriptions and relying primarily on online media. In some cases, this underscores the idea of moving away from established media outlets towards what there is on the Internet.

But the way we view media is changing now that we are in the online age.

Media publisher types seem to be divided between two major classes.

One class is the established media outlet who has been a publisher or a broadcaster for a long time. They have been associated with long setup costs and requirements such as printing presses and distribution infrastructure including newsstands; or broadcast licences and RF infrastructure (transmitters, satellite systems or cable-TV setups). Examples of these are the major newspapers or the public-service or commercial broadcasters.

The other class are the online-first publishers like bloggers, podcasters or YouTubers who publish their content primarily on one or more online platforms. They typically set themselves up on the online platforms typically by creating an account; or in some cases, they rent hosting space at a Web hosting provider and buy “online real estate” in the form of one or more domain names to create a Website.

An increasing role of online services that aggregate content

Lenovo Yoga 5G convertible notebook press image courtesy of Lenovo

Smartphones, tablets and laptops being the devices we consume media on nowadays

Then there the online platforms like social media, news aggregators, podcast directories, Internet-radio directories and video servers that simply serve a purpose of aggregating content produced by other online publishers.

This can also include portals like MSN.com, Google or Yahoo hat show news at a glance on a home page along with search directories like Google or Bing. We are also expecting to see more of these services come about as the Internet becomes the backbone of media distribution.

Publishers have seen these services as being of questionable value due to them not being able to monetise their work especially if their work is reproduced verbatim by the aggregator. This has caused continual spats between the established publishers and Big Tech who have been seeing themselves as publishers rather than aggregators.

What is the reality

Established media appearing online

Feedly screenshot

RSS Webfeeds appearing through Feedly

But established media outlets have also set up multiple online front-ends whether free or paid. These also include at least a news portal ran by the publisher or broadcaster. But they also include RSS Webfeeds, podcasts or videos that appear in podcast and video directories, and content that is posted to the Social Web by the publisher.

Examples include TV broadcasters setting up “broadcast video on demand” platforms where they have their broadcast content available for viewing at any time; established news outlets offering their video reports on YouTube or some radio stations running online news portals. Or there are the Internet radio services that work with apps, Internet radios or smart speakers to bring traditional broadcast radio from anywhere in the world to you without the need of local RF-level presence.

Add to this attempts by TV and radio technology guardians to blur the distinction between consuming broadcast media via RF and Internet means and assure a familiar user experience when listening to or watching broadcast content. There is also pressure from established broadcasters to improve the discovery of their content that is offered linearly or on-demand through newer Internet-based devices.

Media outlets catering to the younger audience

A significant trend for established media publishers is to establish “youth-focused” media brands intended to appeal to teenagers and young adults. These nowadays appear exclusively or primarily on online platforms and the content is created and edited by young adults. As well, the content-presentation style is designed to appeal to youth and young adults, typically with snappy audio and video presentation, youthfully-fresh writing styles or simply on-trend with the young audience.

It is in addition to new “young-audience-first” media outlets appearing with content pitched to the young audience. Previously this would have been one of these media outlets running a magazine or radio station, where the content was primarily about fashion or pop-culture trends. But nowadays this manifests in the form of a podcast or online masthead accessible on the Internet and covers all issues of interest to young people including lifestyle issues.

This is something that some of the established media have been working on prior to the Internet, typically through running magazines, radio stations or broadcast shows that appealed to younger people. Here, these shows were seen as being complementary to the rest of that media outlet’s output so limiting the content of that brand to topics like the latest pop culture news.

Here, youth-focused media was seen as a way for business to court a valuable market that was represented by young people, using these platforms to pitch products and services relevant to that age group. Or, for broadcasters that didn’t rely on advertising, it was a way to see themselves as being relevant and attractive to younger audiences.

A history of adapting to new realities

These are steps being taken by established media outlets in order to keep themselves with the online generation, especially the younger generations. It is similar in prior times to how newspaper publishers had to cope with the new radio broadcasters when radio became popular, and how radio broadcasters had to cope when TV became popular and newer pure-play TV broadcasters appeared on the TV dial.

The main example is to have a Web-driven online newspaper that is offered for free, through donations or through subscriptions dependent on the publisher’s business model. Other approaches also include audio-on-demand (podcast) or video-on-demand material, or having the broadcast stream offered by Internet means.

The media outlets often see this as a way not just to stay relevant but to try different offerings or reach different markets in a low-risk manner. For example, The Guardian and the Daily Mail, two British newspapers, are reaching in to other Anglophone territories by offering an online version of their mastheads that can be read there. Or Communications Fiji Limited who run a handful of radio stations in Fiji and Papua New Guinea are running a Fiji-relevant online newspaper masthead known as Fiji Village.

There has always been criticism about new media types appearing. This tended to occur when there was an increased saturation of that media type amongst the population and the media type offered content that was popular. In a lot of cases, this criticism was directed at newer media platforms that were primarily about content that panders to our base instincts.

Online access to press releases

Most organisations including governments are publishing resources “from the horse’s mouth” online under their brand. These resources typically appear as press releases, blog posts or similar content including audiovisual content. Here, you can find them on the organisation’s Website or on online-service accounts operated by the organisation.

They can come in to play for verifying the authenticity of news material and even be useful for working against exaggeration by media outlets. Sometimes the blog posts can be used to “flesh out” what is being talked about in the press releases.

The issues to think of

A key issue is encouraging people to aware of the quality of news and information they consume from media in general.

Here, the blame about poor-quality news and information tends to be laid at the feet of online media. But these problems appear both with traditional media and the new online media.

For example, tabloid journalism, especially of a partisan nature, has been seen as a long-term media issue. It affects offline media, in the form of “red-top” tabloid newspapers, talkback radio hosted by “shock jocks”, tabloid-style public-affairs shows on Australian commercial TV, and far-right cable-TV news channels; as well as online media especially partisan online media outlets. Here, the issues raised include chequebook journalism, portraying marginalised communities in a negative light, and pandering to personal biases through emotion-driven copywriting.

In the online context, it is often referred to as “click-bait” because end-users are encouraged to click on the material to see further information about the topic. This often leads to seeing many ads for questionable online businesses.

This issue has become more intense since 2016 when it was realised that fake news and disinformation spread through social media was used to steer the outcome of the Brexit referendum and the US presidential election held that year.

What can be done

Media literacy

A key requirement is to encourage media literacy through education. An increasing number of schools are integrating media-literacy in to secondary-school curriculums, usually under various subjects.

As well, some libraries and community-education facilities are teaching media literacy to adults as short courses. You may find that some secondary schools may run a media-literacy short course as part of their community-education effort.

In addition, respected media outlets including public service broadcasters are supplying material about media literacy. Google is also joining in on the media-literacy game by running YouTube videos on that topic. This is thanks to YouTube being where videos with questionable information are being published.

Examples of this include the ABC’s “Media Watch” TV show that critiques media and marketing or their “Behind The News” media-literacy video series that was ran during 2020 as COVID started to take hold.

Here, media literacy is about being able to “read between the lines” and assess the veracity of news content. This includes being able to assess news sources carefully and critically as well as assess how news outlets are treating particular topics.

Flagging, debunking and prebunking misinformation and disinformation

Another effort that is taking place is the flagging, debunking and “prebunking” of misinformation and disinformation.

Fact-check websites ran by established media outlets and universities draw our attention to questionable information and highlight whether it is accurate or not. As well, they write up information to substantiate their findings regarding the questionable information and this is derived from collections of established knowledge o the topic.

Here, one could check through one or more of these Websites to see whether the information is accurate or not and why it is or isn’t accurate.

As well, mainstream online service providers are joining in the game by flagging potential disinformation and providing links to accurate resources on the topic. This was an effort that was very strong through the COVID pandemic due to the misinformation and disinformation that is swirling around cyberspace during the height of the pandemic. Such disinformation was at risk of causing people to make the wrong health choices regarding limiting the spread of COVID like not masking up or avoiding COVID vaccinations.

Then there are “prebunking” efforts typically undertaken by government departments or civil society to warn us about potential disinformation and propaganda. This is to make the public aware of the questionable information in a preemptive manner and publish accurate information on the topic at hand.

A common analogy that is used is how vaccinations work to defend our bodies against particular diseases or reduce the harm they can cause. I also use the common reference to the “guardrail at the top of the cliff” versus the “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” where the guardrail protects against incidents occurring.

It can be in the form of online resources like FAQs carrying accurate information on the topic at and, typically to rebut the common myths. This can be augmented with other efforts like public-service announcements in traditional media or experts making appearances in the public space or on broadcasts to talk about these issues.

Conclusion

New approaches to distributing and consuming news will require us across the generations to adapt our thoughts regarding the different media outlets that exist. This will be more about the quality of the journalism that these outlets provide rather than how the news is distributed.

This will including identifying sources of good-quality journalism and, where applicable, supporting these sources in whatever way possible. As well, keeping ourselves media literate will also be an important task.

European Union deems Big Tech companies and services as gatekeeepers

Article

European Union flag - Creative Commons by Rock Cohen - https://www.flickr.com/photos/robdeman/

The EU will be using two new tools to regulate Big Tech significantly

EU names six tech giant ‘gatekeepers’ under DMA guidelines | Mashable

From the horse’s mouth

European Union

Digital Markets Act: Commission designates six gatekeepers (europa.eu)

My Comments

The European Union is taking serious steps towards controlling Big Tech further and enforcing a competitive market within its territory.

They recently passed the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act laws which apply to companies that have a significant market presence in the EU. The former one is about assuring real competition by doing things like pry open app stores to competition, require a service to accept advertising for its competitors or assure end-users have access to the data they generate through their services. As well, the latter one regulates online services to assure a user experience with these services that is safe and in harmony with European values as well as supporting innovation and competitiveness.

Initially, six powerful Big Tech companies have been designated as “gatekeepers” under the Digital Markets Act. These are Alphabet (Google, Jigsaw, Nest), Amazon, Meta (Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Instagram, Threads, WhatsApp), Apple, ByteDance (TikTok) and Microsoft.

Google Play Android app store

The European laws will also be about prying open the app-store marketplace for mobile platform devices

Most of the products like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Amazon’s marketplaces, the familiar Google search engine, and the mobile app stores ran by Apple and Google are listed services or platforms subject to scrutiny as “gateways”. Even the iOS, Android and Microsoft Windows desktop operating systems are also deemed “gateways” under this law. But I am surprised that the Apple MacOS operating system wasn’t even deemed as a “gateway” under that law.

There is further investigation about Microsoft’s Bing search platform, Edge browser and Advertising platform and Apple’s iMessage messaging service regarding deeming them as “gateways”.

The latter one has attracted intense scrutiny from the computing press due to it not being fully interoperable with Android users who use first-party messaging clients compliant with the standards-based RCS advanced-messaging platform put forward by the GSM Association. This causes a significantly-reduced messaging experience if iPhone users want to message Android users, such as not being able to share higher-resolution images.

What happens is that “Gatekeeper” IT companies will be under strict compliance measures with requirement to report to the European Commission. These include requirements to:

  • accept competitors on their platform, which will apply to app stores, operating systems and online advertising platforms
  • ensure that end-users have access to data they generate on the platform
  • allow end-users and merchants to complete transactions away from app-store and similar platforms owned by the gatekeeper company
  • assure independent verification by advertisers of ad impressions that occur on their ad-tech platform

At the moment, an online service or similar IT company is considered a “gatekeeper” if they have:

  • EUR€7.5bn turnover
  • EUR€75 billion market capitalisation
  • 45 million or more active users in the 27 European-Union member countries

Personally, I would like to see the geographic realm for active users based on a larger area in Europe because of non-EU countries like Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and the UK and EU-candidate countries also contributing to the user base. For example, this could be based on the European Economic Area or membership of the Council of Europe which standardises fundamental human-rights expectations in Europe.

Failure to comply will see the company face fines of 10% of its global turnover, even the ability for the European Union bureaucrats to subject a company to a Standard Oil / AT&T style forced breakup.

At the moment, it is about EU setting an example on reining in Big Tech with DMA being considered a gold standard by the consumer IT press just as GDPR was considered a gold standard for user privacy. But the United Kingdom is putting a similar recommendation in place by introducing the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill before Parliament. This is while the USA are trying to pry open app stores with various anti-trust (competitive-trade) and similar legislation.

A question that will also arise is whether the European Union bureaucrats can effectively have control over corporations anywhere in the world such as to force the breakup of a dominant corporation that is chartered in the USA for example. This is although they could exert this power over a company’s local affiliate offices that exist within Europe for example.

There is still a very serious risk of Big Tech “dumping” non-compliant software and services in to jurisdictions that aren’t covered by these regulations. This will typically manifest in software or services that have the features desired by customers like sideloading or competitive app-store access for mobile operating systems or ad-free subscription versions of social networks being only available in Europe for example. This was a practice that happened with Microsoft when the EU forced them to allow the end-user to install an alternative Web browser when they install Windows as part of commissioning a new computer for example, with this feature only occurring within Europe.

A previous analogy I used is what has been happening with the vehicle market in Australia where vehicles that aren’t fuel-efficient to current international expectations appear in this country whereas other countries benefit from those vehicles that are fuel-efficient. This is due to Australia not implementing the fleet-wide fuel-efficiency standards being used in many countries around the world.

Who knows how long it will take to push similar legislation or regulation aimed at curbing Big Tech’s marketplace powers around the world. Only time will tell.

Anti-stalking features part of major Bluetooth item-location platforms

Apple AirTag press image courtesy of Apple

Apple AirTag – one of the main item-location platforms that are supporting anti-stalking measures

Apple and Tile implement item-location platforms that are based around Bluetooth-driven locator tags that can be attached to the items that need to be located. They also work with software that “pings” these tags in order to locate them on a map or make them sound an audible signal so you can locate the object attached to them.

But some people use these tags for nefarious purposes. Typically this is about tracking people who don’t want to be tracked, typically as part of stalking or as part of abusive one-sided relationships.

But Apple and Tile have answered this problem through adding logic to their first-party mobile-platform to detect unknown or unrecognised Bluetooth trackers. It is based around the idea of a tracking device or tag that is not associatedd with your “universe” of mobile computing devices moving in the same direction as you or your mobile computing device.

In the case of Apple, this is built in to the iOS operating system and in to a first-party mobile-platform app for Android. This software identifies if the AirTag or other “Find My” device is moving with you that isn’t registered to your device or Apple ID and is separate from the registered user. As well, the AirTag makes a sound if it isn’t with its owner for a significant amount of time. It also has NFC to allow a person to use a suitably-equipped mobile platform device to identify whether the AirTag is lost, including how to contact the device’s owner and return it. This also yields instruction on how to disable the device by removing the coin-size battery.

With Tile, the software is part of their first-party companion mobile-platform app and identifies if the unknown Tile device is moving with you and separate from the registered user. But it requires that you use the mobile-platform app to instigate a “scan” process.

As well, Google has baked in to their Google Services update package for Android 6.0+ the necessary software code to detect unknown tracker devices that are following you. This includes the necessary user interface to warn you against unknown tracker devices following you and help you identify or disable these devices.

This is part of an Apple and Google initiative to establish an Internet Engineering Task Force draft specification that mandates particular anti-surveillance features in Bluetooth-driven item-location platforms that work with iOS or Android smartphones. It avoids the need for companies who want to build item-location platforms to design them responsibly without needing to reinvent the wheel.

What needs to happen to prevent covert surveillance with item-location platforms

Once the IETF specification regarding anti-surveillance features for item-location platforms is set in stone. there has to be some form of legal mandate regarding its implementation in computing platforms and computer-assisted item-location platforms. This could be through other international standards regarding radiocommunications and telecommunications devices or customs and other legislation and regulation regarding the trade in goods.

The anti-surveillance features in these item-location platform would need to be able to perform well within a crowded location especially where multiple devices of the same platform and owned by different owners are likely to be there. Think of, say a busy bar or nightclub where many people are likely to be moving around the venue.

Similarly, these features would need to work properly with situations where a passenger’s luggage is transported in the baggage hold of the same transport as its owner. This is because some passengers may use an AirTag or luggage with integrated item-finding technology in order to avoid losing their baggage.

The devices need to support universal platform-independent NFC “touch-and-go” technology to allow someone to identify lost tracking devices. This would then show up contact details about who own the device or how to return it to its owner. This is more so where a computing device that has or is connected to an NFC sensor but doesn’t run iOS or Android is used to identify the tracking device’s owner, something that would be common with laptop or 2-in-1 computers. Such a situation would come in to its own with a lost-and-found office who uses regular computers running desktop operating systems as their main office computer equipment.

As well, item-location devices should be easy to disable like removing the battery or enforcing a factory reset on the device. This would come in to its own if the device was being used to track someone and such a device was discovered by its target or someone assisting the target.

Let’s not forget that wearables like smartwatches and fitness trackers, along with headphones and similar personal-audio devices are being equipped with location-tracking functionality. This is to allow people to locate lost smartwatches or earbuds or premises owners, lost-and-found offices and the like to return abandoned devices to their owners. Here, they would have to be part of an established platform and be subject to the same conditions as tag-style devices.

There could also be one or more innovation challenges for manufacturers of various third-party devices in one or more sectors that work to detect covert surveillance of people using item-location devices. Such devices like, perhaps, turnstile-type devices could be designed to provide augmented signalling of tracker devices unrelated to a user’s smartphone but moving with the user or their possessions.

Add to this education programs for third parties like IT support, the security sector, the social-work sector and similar groups to help staff work against covert surveillance of people they work with using item-location devices. This could be about assisting with locating and defeating unwanted devices or configuring users’ personal technology for privacy.

Similarly there has to be action taken about the sale of devices that are modified to avoid detection by the person who is being tailed. This is more so where there have been AirTags sold through online marketplaces like Etsy that have their speaker removed or disconnected to avoid audible “pinging” and detection by the stalking victim. Such action could be in the form of statutory action like radiocommunications regulations regarding such devices sold on the secondary market or customs regulation regarding devices that are imported or exported.

Conclusion

What I see of this effort by Apple and Google is a significant step towards responsible secure design of item-location platforms and an example of what responsible design is about.

When use of multiple public accounts isn’t appropriate

Article

Facebook login page

There are times where use of public accounts isn’t appropriate

The murky world of politicians’ covert social media accounts (sbs.com.au)

My Comments

Just lately there have questions raised about how Australian politicians and their staff members were operating multiple online personas to disparage opponents, push political ideologies or “blow their own trumpet”.

It is being raised in connection with legislative reforms that the Australian Federal Government are working on to place the onus of responsibility regarding online defamation on whoever is posting the defamatory material in a comments trail on an online service. This is different to the status quo of having whoever is setting up or managing an online presence like a Website or Facebook Page being liable for defamation.

Here, it is in the context of what is to be expected for proper political communication including any “government-to-citizen” messaging. This is to make sure we can maintain trust in our government and that all political messaging is accurate and authentic in the day and age of fake news and disinformation.

I see this also being extended to business communication, including media/marketing/PR and non-profit advocacy organisations who have a high public profile. Here, it is to assure that any messaging by these entities is authentic so that people can build trust in them.

An example of a public-facing online persona – the Facebook page of Dan Andrews, the current Premier of Victoria

What I refer to as an “online persona” are email, instant-messaging and other communications-service accounts; Web pages and blogs; and presences on various part of the Social Web that are maintained by a person or organisation. It is feasible for a person or organisation to maintain a multiplicity of online personas like multiple email accounts or social-media pages that are used to keep public and private messaging separate, whether that’s at the business or personal level.

The normal practice for public figures at least is to create a public online persona and one or two private online personas such as an intra-office persona for colleagues and a personal one for family and friends. This is a safety measure to keep public-facing communications separate from business and personal communications.

Organisations may simply create particular online personas for certain offices with these being managed by particular staff members. In this case, they do this so that communications with a particular office stay the same even as office-holders change. As well, there is the idea of keeping “business-private” material separate from public-facing material.

In this case, the online personas reference the same entity by name at least. This is to assure some form of transparency about who is operating that persona. Other issues that come in to play here include which computing devices are being used to drive particular online personas.

This is more so for workplaces and businesses that own computing and communications hardware and have staff communicate on those company-owned devices for official business. But staff members use devices they bought themselves to operate non-official online personas. This is although more entities are moving towards “BYOD” practices where staff members use their own devices for official work use and there are systems in place to assure secure confidential work from staffer-owned devices.

But there is concern about some Australian politicians creating multiple public-facing personas in order to push various ideologies. Here, these personas are operated in an opaque manner in order to create multiple discrete persons. This technique, when used to appear as though many vouch for a belief or ideology, is referred to under terms like sockpuppetry or astroturfing.

This issue is being raised in the context of government-citizen communication in the online era. But it can also be related to individuals, businesses, trade unions or other organisations who are using opaque means to convey a sense of “popular support” for the same or similar messages.

What I see as being appropriate with establishing multiple online personas is that there is some form of transparency about which person or organisation is managing the different online personas. That includes where there are multiple “child” online personas like Websites operated by a “parent” online persona like an organisation. This practice comes in to being where online personas like email addresses and microsites (small Websites with specific domain names) are created for a particular campaign but aren’t torn down after that campaign.

As well, it includes what online personas are used for what kind of communications. This includes what is written on that “blue-ticked” social-media page or the online addresses that are written on business cards or literature you had out to the public.

Such public-communications mandates will also be required under election-oversight or fair-trading legislation so people know who is behind the messaging and these are important if it is issues-based rather than candidate-based. If an individual is pushing a particular message under their own name, they will have to state whether an entity is paying or encouraging them to advance the message.

This is due to most of us becoming conscious of online messaging from questionable sources. It is thanks to the popular concern about fake news and disinformation and its impact on elections since 2016 thanks to the Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s presidential victory in the USA. It is also due to the rise of the online influencer culture where brands end up using big-time and small-time celebrities and influencers to push their products, services and messages online.

Legal attempts to pry open app stores have come to fruition

Articles

Google Play Android app store

There is action taking place that is prying open the app-store marketplace for mobile platform devices

Spotify and Google Give You Choice in Paying Them (droid-life.com)

Apple will allow third-party app stores, because the EU mandates it | Mashable

Apple is reportedly preparing to allow third-party app stores on iOS | Engadget

Previous Coverage on HomeNetworking01.info

USA to pry open mobile-app-store market

My Comments

Thanks to the “Fortnite” saga where Google and Apple were accused of slugging Epic Games with commissions for selling in-app commodities via their mobile-platform app stores, there has been a shake-up regarding how these app stores are run.

This has also been intensified with various jurisdictions instigating work on or passing legislation and regulation regarding a competitive market for online app stores. One of these is the European Union with the Digital Markets Act which targets large online services that have a gatekeeper role, along with the USA with its Open App Markets Act which targets app stores appearing on mobile and desktop computing platforms and other devices like games consoles or smart TVs.

The Europeans see their effort not just to pry open app stores but also search engines, social networks, video-sharing sites, digital ad platforms, public cloud platforms, even so-called intermediary services like AirBnB, Uber, Uber Eats and Booking.com. There are similar efforts also taking place within UK and Australia with this effort resulting in codes of practice being established for online services.

What has happened so far

Google has taken steps to enable user-choice billing for in-app purchases normally made through their Play Store.

Firstly, they allowed people who use Bumble online-dating apps to subscribe directly with Bumble or via the app store. Now they have enabled Spotify subscribers to pay for their subscription either through the Play Store or direct with Spotify. Of course, some online services like Netflix and Britbox allow for direct payment for their subscriptions by requiring you to manage your account through the service provider’s Website.

But Google will implement this feature at the checkout point in your purchase by allowing you to select payment via Google Play or directly with the software developer. When you pay directly, you will see the online service payment user-experience provided by the developer including the ability to redeem their service’s gift vouchers, pay using PayPal or pay using a payment card platform they have business relations with. Or you pay using Google Play Store’s payment user interface that you would be familiar with.

When your payment-card statement arrives, you will see a reference to Google if you paid for the online commodity through them or a reference to the software developer / online service if you paid directly.

Paying directly would mean that software developer or online service gets your money without having to pay a “cut” to Google for accepting payment via the Google Play Store. As well, the software developer or online service is at liberty to sign up with other payment means like PayPal, other credit cards like AMEX or Discover / Diners Club, or national account-linked payment platforms like EFTPOS, Carte Bleue or EC-Karte. There is also the ability for them to offer gift vouchers that go towards their offerings.

Another benefit that will come about if you pay for a subscription directly is that if you change to a different mobile platform, your subscription is kept alive rather than you having to reinstigate your subscription with the new platform’s app store and payment mechanism.

It also positions the Google Play Store’s online payment arrangement in competition with the software developer or online service thus improving the terms of business for accepting payment from customers. An example of this is both service providers providing a link with payment-anchored loyalty programs as a way to incentivise customers towards payment through their platforms.

Another direction being taken towards prying open the app stores is Apple baking  support for third-party app stores into iOS 17 which is the next major feature release of iOS. This is in addition to offering newer versions of the iPhone with USB-C ports rather than MFi Lightning ports for external connectivity. Here, this is due to intense European pressure to open themselves up to open markets by the European Union. But the support for third-party app stores would also come down to the Open App Markets Act that is being pushed through the US Congress.

Issues to be resolved

One issue that will have to be resolved is how the average smartphone or tablet user can install a competing app store to their device.

This is more about where a smartphone manufacturer or mobile operating system developer can get away with burying this option behind a “developer mode” or “advanced-user mode”. Or it could be about onerous requirements placed on software developers by mobile platforms when it comes to creating or publishing their software such as access to application-programming interfaces or software development kits.

The app stores will also have to be about selling good-quality compelling software and games. This is so they don’t end up as the equivalent of bulletin boards, download sites and optical discs attached to computer magazines where these resources were full of poor-quality software, known as “shovelware”.

Then there is the appeal of competing app stores to consumers and software developers. Personally I see these stores have initial appeal in the gaming sector with the likes of Steam or GOG existing on mobile platforms. Also I would see some software developers operate their own app stores as a way to maintain end-to-end control of their apps.

Conclusion

There are steps being taken by Google and Apple to liberate their mobile-platform software ecosystem even though it is under pressure from competition authorities in significant jurisdictions.

Where to go now that Elon Musk has taken over Twitter

Recently Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, had bought out Twitter.

This takeover has been seen not as the kind of takeover where one wants to invest in a company but more of a political move. It came about in the runup to the 2002 Midterm elections in the USA, an election cycle that impacts members of Congress and significant state-level officials like governors and secretaries of state.

This is because this Midterm election cycle is a “do-or-die” moment for American democracy due to whether state officials or members of Congress that support Donald Trump and his election-denial rhetoric come in to power, with it being the first Midterms after the January 6 2021 insurrection on the Capitol which was about denying the legitimate result of the 2020 Presidential election.

The goal of this takeover was to convert Twitter in to a so-called “free-speech” social media platform like Parler, Gab or TruthSocial including to reinstate Donald Trump’s Twitter presence. This included the laying off of at least 4000 staff especially those involved in content moderation.

Here, Twitter has lost it as far as brand-safety and social respect is concerned with a significant number of household names removing their advertising or online presence from Twitter. As well, increasingly most of us are considering or taking steps to limit our presence on or remove ourselves from Twitter.

As well, this takeover has ended up in a spat between Elon Musk and Apple about the possibility of Apple removing the Twitter native mobile app from the iOS App Store. This is part of Apple’s effort to make the iOS App Store a clean bouse with content and apps that are fit for work and the family home. Lately, this has manifested in Apple destroying their Twitter account and removing its posts.

Competing social platforms

Facebook, Instagram, Threads, LinkedIn and Hive Social

The Meta-run social-media platforms i.e. Facebook and Instagram are acquiring new appeal as a business-to-consumer social-media presence. This is in addition to LinkedIn acquiring a stronger relevance in the business-to-business space. It is because these social networks are maintaining some form of proper content moderation that keeps them brand-safe and with some form of social licence.

For example, these platforms are being used by brands, public figures and the like as a means to distribute information “from the horse’s mouth” like press releases. This is in addition to them buying space on them to run their campaigns. Similarly, the established media are maintaining their presence on these platforms, typically as an “on-platform” presence for their news services.

In 2023, Meta built on Threads which is a Twitter-like text-based social media platform to their Instagram platform in order to provide something that is similar to how Twitter was previously. There has been talk of having it “Fediverse-ready” so it can work with Mastodon but is slowly gaining traction amongst the Instagram user base.

Another network being put on the map is Hive Social which is being run as an alternative to Twitter with the same user experience. This is yet another platform with a centralised user experience but is facing some early problems due to its success as a Twitter alternative. Here, you may find that the service availability may not be strong and there will be some security issues.

Mastodon and the Fediverse

Another platform that has gained a lot of heat over the last few weeks is Mastodon. This is a decentralised Twitter-style social network where each “Instance” server works similar to a small bar or café where the staff have the finger on the pulse as far as the patrons are concerned. But each Mastodon Instance is linked to each other via the Fediverse which works in a similar way to email.

The Fediverse uses the ActivityPub publish-and-subscribe protocol and relies on interconnected servers and decentralised networking protocols. It is used by Mastodon and other services like PeerTube and Pieroma. In this space, each server for a platform is called an Instance and these link or “federate” with other servers to give the appearance of a large social network. But the Instance owner has the upper hand on what goes on in that Instance server.

These setups could also be seen as being similar to the bulletin-board systems that existed before the Internet was popular where most of them were interconnected using FidoNet as a means to store and forward messages and emails between the BBS systems.

When you create an account on a Mastodon Instance, you can add a link to a Website you run and this is used as a way to authenticate you. But you also have to add a link on your Website to your Mastodon presence for you to be authenticated, which then leads to a blue tick.

At the moment, there is support for only one user account per Mastodon Instance server so you can’t really run a “private” and a “public” account on the same Instance. It could work for people who use a particular Mastodon Instance associated with their work for public-facing posts as well as a private account for personal posts on a community Mastodon server. There doesn’t seem to be support for “group” accounts that can be operated by multiple users at the moment.

But with other open-source software efforts, Mastodon will be subject to continual tweaks and revisions to bring it to what people will want out of it. There may also be activity taking place to improve the establishment of Mastodon Instance servers such as porting to popular business server environments or integration with business-computing account datasets.

Other technologies worth considering

Online forums and similar technologies

Old-school “pre-social-media” technologies like online forums of the phpBB or vBulletin kind, or email-list platforms like listservs may have to be used. As well, the group functionality offered by Facebook, WhatsApp, Viber, Signal and Telegram come in to their own here as a limited-circulation Twitter replacement.

Blogs and news Websites

The traditional blog and the regularly-up;dated news Website or “update page” are becoming more relevant in this time. Here, these will be augmented with an RSS Webfeed or an email update offered by the site that comes out on a regular basis.

What can organisations, content authors and public figures do?

Organisations, content authors and public figures can keep a Website alive with the latest information if they aren’t already doing this. This would work really well with a blog or news page that is always up-to-date and these resources are best augmented with at least one RSS Webfeed that reflects the updates that are made.

The RSS Webfeed can be used to feed a reputable email-publishing platform like Feedblitz or Mailchimp so that people get the updates in their email inbox. Your LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram or other brand-safe social-media presences can come in to their own here as well when you post a link to your latest posts there and are worth maintaining. As well, you could consider setting up shop on Hive Social which is becoming a viable alternative to Twitter.

Small-time operators should work with a Webhost that offers a range of online services at reasonable prices. These should include email, Website hosting and hosting one or two online services in a secure manner.

If you can, you may have to investigate creating a business-wide Mastodon instance. This is about having your own space that you control and is something that your IT staff or Webhost can offer, especially if they are familiar with Linux. Here, you could have usernames that reflect your workgroups or staff who want to have a public Mastodon account.

Let’s not forget creating online forums using the likes of bbPress, phpBB or vBulletin for your company or industry. Even vertical-market software that suits your organisation’s type or the industry it works in like religion or education could come in to its own.

Conclusion

The takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk as a political affair is showing that there is the risk of online services falling in to the wrong hands. Here, an emphasis is being placed on a plurality of social media and other online services that can be moderated to preserve sanity on the Internet.

Update – April 2024: I have added some details about Meta’s Instagram-based Threads platform as their approach to creating an alternative social network to X / Twitter.

What is prebunking in the context of news accuracy?

Facebook login page

Prebunking is used to rebut potential disinformation campaigns on social media

As you hear about how different entities are managing fake news and disinformation, you may hear of “prebunking” in the war against these disinformation campaigns. Here, it is about making sure the correct and accurate information gets out first before falsehoods gain traction.

Fact-checkers operated by newsrooms and universities and engaged by media outlets and respectable online services typically analyse news that comes their way to see if it is factual and truthful. One of the primary tasks they do is to “debunk” or discredit what they have found to be falsehoods by publishing information about rebuffs the falsehood.

But the war against fake news and disinformation is also taking another approach by dealing with potential disinformation and propaganda in a pre-emptive manner.

Here, various organisations like newsrooms, universities or government agencies will anticipate and publish a line of disinformation that is likely to be published while concurrently publishing material that refutes the anticipated falsehood. It may also be about rebutting possible information manipulation or distortion of facts by publishing material that carries the accurate information.

This process is referred to as “prebunking” rather than debunking because of it forewarning the general public about possible falsehoods or information manipulation. It is also couched in terms analogous to inoculation or vaccination because a medical vaccine like one of those COVID jabs establishes a defence in your body against a pending infection thus making it hard for that infection to take hold in your body.

Prebunking is seen as a “heads-up” alert to a potential disinformation campaign so we can be aware of and take action against it. One way of describing this as prebunking as the “guardrail at the top of the cliff” and debunking as the ”ambulance at the bottom of the cliff”. These efforts are also a way to sensitise us to the techniques used to have us believe distorted messaging and disinformation campaigns by highlighting fearmongering, scapegoating and pandering to our base instincts, emotions and biases.

Prebunking efforts are typically delivered as public-service announcements or posts that are run on Social Web platforms by government entities, advocacy organisations or similar groups. Other media platform like television or radio public-service announcements can be used to present prebunking information. Where a post or announcement leads to any online resources, this will be in the form of a simple-language landing page that even provides a FAQ (frequently-asked questions) article about the topic and the falsehoods associated with it. Examples of this in Australia are the state and federal election authorities who have been running posts in social media platforms to debunk American-style voter-suppression disinformation that surfaces around Australian elections.

Such campaigns are in response to the disinformation risks that are presented by the 24-hour news cycle and the Social Web. In a lot of cases, these campaigns are activated during a season of high disinformation risk like an election or referendum. Sometimes a war in another part of the world may be the reason to instigate a prebunking campaign because this is where the belligerent states will activate their propaganda machines to make themselves look good in the eyes of the world.

But the various media-literacy efforts ran by public libraries, educational institutions, public-service broadcasters and the like are also prebunking efforts in their own right. For example the ABC’s “Media Watch” exposes where traditional and social media are at risk of information manipulation or spreading disinformation with this show, for example, highlighting tropes used by media organisations to manipulate readers or viewers. Or the ABC running a “Behind The News” video series during 2020 about media literacy in the era of fake news and disinformation with “The Drum” cross-promoting it as something for everyone to see. A similar video-lecture series and resource page has also been made available by the University of Washington on this topic.

What prebunking is all about is to disseminate correct and accurate information relevant to an issue where there is a strong likelihood of misinformation or disinformation in order to have people aware of the proper facts and what is likely to go around.

What is the Declaration For The Future Of The Internet about?

Articles

Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon Ultrabook

Internet services now under a worldwide declaration

US signs Declaration for the Future of the Internet alongside 60 global partners | Windows Central

US Pledges to Keep an Open Internet With Dozens of Other Countries – CNET

Governments Pledge to Keep an Open Internet, Not Russia, China (gizmodo.com)

From the horse’s mouth

The White House, USA

FACT SHEET: United States and 60 Global Partners Launch Declaration for the Future of the Internet | The White House

Declaration-for-the-Future-for-the-Internet_Launch-Event-Signing-Version_FINAL.pdf (whitehouse.gov)

My Comments

The US, European Union, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries signed a declaration regarding the Internet. This declaration, called the “Declaration For The Future Of The Internet” is an effort by the Biden White House to reinforce what the Internet is to be about as an open network of networks with a fair playing field.

This is a response by these countries against digital authoritarianism that has been shown by authoritarian regimes like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. It encompasses domestic and international online repression efforts like censorship along with international political destabilisation efforts like election / referendum interference, disinformation campaigns and cyberattacks.

There is also the same fear that due to populist strongman politics taking place ins some Western and other countries not associated with that kind of politics, the Internet as a symbol of freedom of expression could be under threat in those countries.

It is a reference for public policymakers, citizens, the business community and civil society organisations, but is non-binding. This is seen as a sticking point amongst some because sone countries like the USA aren’t toeing the line when it comes to a free and open Internet with issues like civilian surveillance. But some policymakers in some governments, international organisations and civil society could see this as a “gold standard” for what the Internet should be about.

The goal in this Declaration is to maintain what the Internet was about when it came about in the 1990s – an open network of networks that is freely accessible to all.

It is about protecting fundamental human rights and freedoms for all people in the online space. As well, it is about the global Internet that facilitates the free flow of information for citizens and businesses. That also includes inclusive and affordable connectivity to the Internet, which also factors in access from rural and remote areas. As well, there should be an increase in our digital skills so we can work the Internet competently.

Trust in the global online ecosystem is also underscored, including protection of the privacy and confidentiality of end-users. This is about safe secure private Internet use. For businesses of all sizes, it is about allowing them to compete, innovate and thrive in their own merits.

This goal is to be facilitated using reliable secure interoperable and sustainable infrastructure around the world. Here it would be managed in a multiple stakeholder approach to assure common benefit.

An issue that will need to he looked at is how online services are operated by the private sector. This is with expectations regarding end-user privacy along with their operation as a social good. It may also have to include support for healthy competition between online service providers so as to support innovation and service affordability.

I do see a strong possibility that the Declaration For The Future Of The Internet as a “Gold Standard” for what is expected of the Internet as part of a democratic society.

Australian Electoral Commission takes to Twitter to rebut election disinformation

Articles Australian House of Representatives ballot box - press picture courtesy of Australian Electoral Commission

Don’t Spread Disinformation on Twitter or the AEC Will Roast You (gizmodo.com.au)

Federal Election 2022: How the AEC Is Preparing to Combat Misinformation (gizmodo.com.au)

From the horse’s mouth

Australian Electoral Commission

AEC launches disinformation register ahead of 2022 poll (Press Release)

Previous coverage on HomeNetworking01.info

Being cautious about fake news and misinformation in Australia

My Comments

This next 18 months is to be very significant as far as general elections in Australia go. It is due to a Federal election and state elections in the most populous states taking place during that time period i.e. this year has the Federal election having to take place by May and the Victorian state election taking place by November, then the New South Wales state election taking place by March 2023.

Democracy sausages prepared at election day sausage sizzle


Two chances over the next 18 months to benefit from the democracy sausage as you cast your vote
Kerry Raymond, CC BY 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Oh yeah, more chances to eat those democracy sausages available at that school’s sausage sizzle after you cast that vote. But the campaign machine has started up early this year at the Federal level with United Australia Party ads appearing on commercial TV since the Winter Olympics, yard signs from various political parties appearing in my local neigbbourhood and an independent candidate for the Kooyong electorate running ads online through Google AdSense with some of those ads appearing on HomeNetworking01.info. This is even before the Governor General had served the necessary writs to dissolve the Federal Parliament and commence the election cycle.

Ged Kearney ALP candidate yard sign

The campaigns are underway even before the election is called

This season will be coloured with the COVID coronavirus plague and the associated vaccination campaigns, lockdowns and other public-health measures used to mitigate this virus. This will exacerbate Trump-style disinformation campaigns affecting the Australian electoral process, especially from anti-vaccination / anti-public-health-measure groups.

COVID will also exacerbate issues regarding access to the vote in a safe manner. This includes dealing with people who are isolated or quarantined due to them or their household members being struck down by the disease or allowing people on the testing and vaccination front lines to cast their vote. Or it may be about running the polling booths in a manner that is COVID-safe and assures the proper secret ballot.

There is also the recent flooding that is taking place in Queensland and NSW with it bringing about questions regarding access to the vote for affected communities’ and volunteers helping those communities. All these situations would depend on people knowing where and how to cast “convenience votes” like early or postal votes, or knowing where the nearest polling booth is especially with the flooding situation rendering the usual booths in affected areas out of action.

The Australian Electoral Commission who oversees elections at a federal level have established a register to record fake-news and disinformation campaigns that appear online to target Australians. They will also appear at least on Twitter to debunk disinformation that is swirling around on that platform and using common hashtags associated with Australian politics and elections.

Add to this a stronger wider “Stop And Consider” campaign to encourage us to be mindful about what we see, hear or read regarding the election. This is based on their original campaign ran during the 2019 Federal election to encourage us to be careful about what we share online. Here, that was driven by that Federal election being the first of its kind since we became aware of online fake-news and disinformation campaigns and their power to manipulate the vote.

There will be a stronger liasion with the AEC and the online services in relation to sharing intelligence about disinformation campaigns.

But the elephant in the room regarding election safety is IT security and cyber safety for a significant number of IT systems that would see a significant amount of election-related data being created or modified through this season.

Service Victoria contact-tracing QR code sign at Fairfield Primary School

Even the QR-code contact-tracing platforms used by state governments as part of their COVID management efforts have to be considered as far as IT security for an election is concerned – like this one at a school that is likely to be a polling place

This doesn’t just relate to the electoral oversight bodies but any government, media or civil-society setup in place during the election.

That would encompass things ranging from State governments wanting to head towards fully-electronic voter registration and electoral-roll mark-off processes, through the politicians and political parties’ IT that they use for their business process, the state-government QR-code contact tracing platforms regularly used by participants during this COVID-driven era, to the IT operated by the media and journalists themselves to report the election. Here, it’s about the safety of the participants in the election process, the integrity of the election process and the ability for voters to make a proper and conscious choice when they cast their vote.

Such systems have a significant number of risks associated with their data such as cyber attacks intended to interfere with or exfiltrate data or slow down the performance of these systems. It is more so where the perpetrators of this activity extends to adverse nation states or organised crime anywhere in the world. As well, interference with these IT systems is used as a way to create and disseminate fake news, disinformation and propaganda.

But the key issue regarding Australia’s elections being safe from disinformation and election interference is for us to be media-savvy. That includes being aware of material that plays on your emotions; being aware of bias in media and other campaigns; knowing where sources of good-quality and trustworthy news are; and placing importance on honesty, accuracy and ethics in the media.

Here, it may be a good chance to look at the “Behind The News” media-literacy TV series the ABC produced during 2020 regarding the issue of fake news and disinformation.  Sometimes you may also find that established media, especially the ABC and SBS or the good-quality newspapers may be the way to go for reliable election information. Even looking at official media releases “from the horse’s mouth” at government or political-party Websites may work as a means to identify exaggeration that may be taking place.

Having the various stakeholders encourage media literacy and disinformation awareness, along with government and other entities taking a strong stance with cyber security can be a way to protect this election season.

YouTube to examine further ways to control misinformation

Article

YouTube recommendation list

YouTube to further crack down on misinformation using warning screens and other strategies

YouTube Eyes New Ways to Stop Misinformation From Spreading Beyond Its Reach – CNET

From the horse’s mouth

YouTube

Inside Responsibility: What’s next on our misinfo efforts (Blog Post)

My Comments

YouTube’s part in controlling the spread of repeated disinformation has been found to be very limited in some ways.

This was focused on managing accounts and channels (collections of YouTube videos submitted by a YouTube account holder and curated by that holder) in a robust manner like implementing three-strikes policies when repeated disinformation occurs. It extended to managing the content recommendation engine in order to effectively “bury” that kind of content from end-users’ default views.

But new other issues have come up in relation to this topic. One of these is to continually train the artificial-intelligence / machine-learning subsystems associated with how YouTube operates with new data that represents newer situations. This includes the use of different keywords and different languages.

Another approach that will fly in the face of disinformation purveyors is to point end-users to authoritative resources relating to the topic at hand. This will typically manifest in lists of hyperlinks to text and video resources from sources of respect when there is a video or channel that has questionable material.

But a new topic or new angle on an existing topic can yield a data-void where there is scant or no information on the topic from respectable resources. This can happen when there is a fast-moving news event and is fed by the 24-hour news cycle.

Another issue is where someone creates a hyperlink to or embeds a YouTube video in their online presence. This is a common way to put YouTube video content “on the map” and can cause a video to go viral by acquiring many views. In some cases like “communications-first” messaging platforms such as SMS/MMS or instant-messaging, a preview image of the video will appear next to a message that has a link to that video.

Initially YouTube looked at the idea of preventing a questionable resource from being shared through the platform’s user interface. But questions were raised about this including limiting a viewer’s freedoms regarding taking the content further.

The issue that wasn’t even raised is the fact that the video can be shared without going via YouTube’s user interface. This can be through other means like copying the URL in the address bar if viewing on a regular computer or invoking the “share” intent on modern desktop and mobile operating systems to facilitate taking it further. In some operating systems, that can extend to printing out material or “throwing” image or video material to the large screen TV using a platform like Apple TV or Chromecast. Add to this the fact that a user will want to share the video with others as part of academic research or news report.

Another approach YouTube is looking at is based on an age-old approach implemented by responsible TV broadcasters or by YouTube with violent age-restricted or other questionable content. That is to show a warning screen, sometimes accompanied with an audio announcement, before the questionable content plays. Most video-on-demand services will implement an interactive approach at least in their “lean-forward” user interfaces where the viewer has to assent to the warning before they see any of that content.

In this case, YouTube would run a warning screen regarding the existence of disinformation in the video content before the content plays. Such an approach would make us aware of the situation and act as a “speed bump” against continual consumption of that content or following through on hyperlinks to such content.

Another issue YouTube is working on is keeping its anti-disinformation efforts culturally relevant. This scopes in various nations’ historical and political contexts, whether a news or information source is an authoritative independent source or simply a propaganda machine, fact-checking requirements, linguistic issues amongst other things. The historical and political issue could include conflicts that had peppered the nation’s or culture’s history or how the nation changed governments.

Having support for relevance to various different cultures provides YouTube’s anti-disinformation effort with some “look-ahead” sense when handling further fake-news campaigns. It also encompasses recognising where a disinformation campaign is being “shaped” to a particular geopolitical area with that area’s history being weaved in to the messaging.

But whatever YouTube is doing may have limited effect if the purveyors of this kind of nonsense use other services to host this video content. This can manifest in alternative “free-speech” video hosting services like BitChute, DTube or PeerTube. Or it can be the content creator hosting the video content on their own Website, something that becomes more feasible as the kind of computing power needed for video hosting at scale becomes cheaper.

What is being raised is YouTube using their own resources to limit the spread of disinformation that is hosted on their own servers rather than looking at this issue holistically. But they are looking at issues like the ever-evolving message of disinformation that adapts to particular cultures along with using warning screens before such videos play.

This is compared to third-party-gatekeeper approaches like NewsGuard (HomeNetworking01.info coverage) where an independent third party scrutinises news content and sites then puts their results in a database. Here various forms of logic can work from this database to deny advertising to a site or cause a warning flag to be shown when users interact with that site.

But by realising that YouTube is being used as a host for fake news and disinformation videos, they are taking further action on this issue. This is even though Google will end up playing cat-and-mouse when it comes to disinformation campaigns.