Facebook has a problem: an infestation of undercover cops. Despite the social platform’s explicit rules that the use of fake profiles by anyone–police included–is a violation of terms of service, the issue proliferates. While the scope is difficult to measure, EFF has identified scores of agencies who maintain policies that explicitly flaunt these rules.
Amid a plummeting share price, Facebook Inc. wants panicked investors to believe Europe’s strict General Data Protection Regulation is to blame for fewer people using the social network in the region. EU lawmakers disagree.
The new law came into force on May 25 and forced companies that hold data on EU citizens to obtain “unambiguous” consent to collect personal information. Facebook knows a lot about what people are interested in, and makes that audience easily available to advertisers. That’s fueled rapid revenue growth, billions of dollars in profit, and a surging stock price in recent years.
More than $100 billion of those market gains were wiped out Thursday after Facebook reported sales and user growth numbers that disappointed Wall Street. The company lost about 1 million of European monthly active users in the second quarter, leaving it with 376 million. Daily users fell more. Chief Financial Officer David Wehner blamed the decline on the GDPR roll out.
“We saw the declines that we anticipated from GDPR,” he said. “And I would say there, really, those impacts were purely due to the GDPR impact, not other engagement trends.”
What’s the difference between paying for fake followers and selling bots that use stolen identities?
There is no difference because they are both embarrassments. Actually, selling bots with stolen identities as fake followers is also a crime.
That’s what New York’s attorney general says after opening an investigation based on an expose by the New York Times. The newspaper disclosed that social media users buy fake followers — bots using real identities — to raise their public profile.
A senior German conservative has warned Facebook it could face fines if it fails to act faster to tackle online hate speech, and he said the government could propose legislative measures in the new year.
Speaking at a party conference of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) in Essen, western Germany, Volker Kauder suggested politicians were running out of patience with efforts by social media providers to crack down on hate speech.
“I expect from big companies like Facebook that they adhere to laws. If they are not respected than we must think about new possibilities, fines for example,” he said.
- Merkel ally threatens Facebook with fines over online hate speech (blacklistednews.com)
- Angela Merkel is suddenly in favor of a Burqa ban (hotair.com)
- German prosecutors probe claims of Facebook hate and violence incitement in hundreds of cases (businessinsider.com)
- Fake news has gotten so bad Obama had to weigh in (mashable.com)
- Germany probes Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook’s ‘failure to remove Nazi-themed content’ (telegraph.co.uk)
By: Lynn La
THE GOOD Google Allo is available on both Android and iOS, and features a digital Assistant that fetches information for you in a conversational way. Its Incognito Mode erases conversations and has end-to-end encryption.
THE BAD Allo doesn’t integrate video calling, and it doesn’t have as many features as its competitors, like baked-in GIF support or control over read receipts.
THE BOTTOM LINE It’s not a perfect communications app on Day 1, but the integrated, all-knowing Google Assistant bot sets Allo apart from the messaging competition.
Visit manufacturer site for details.
- Incognito Chats in Google Allo Have Snapchat-Like Expiring Messages (news.softpedia.com)
- Google Allo Features: Set to Enhance Messaging with Aplomb (megebyte.com)
- Major Difference Between WhatsApp and Google Allo Messaging app – Techgide : Technology and Blogging Guide (techgide.com)
- Google messaging app Duo has 10 million downloads, but its rank doesn’t show it (mobilesyrup.com)
- Google Allo APK for Android Download Latest Version | Google Allo App (techcyton.com)
By Nicole Black
It seems lawyers can’t escape social media, no matter how hard we try. As I’ve written about previously, social media is now being used as evidence in cases, lawyers are using it to research jurors, and people are being charged with crimes relating to their actions taken using social media. And once those individuals are convicted, many of them are placed on probation and their use of social media is often limited by the terms of their probation.
Of course, that gap in the Court’s analysis is a perfect example of the difficulties courts encounter when attempting to specify, limit, and define ever-changing concepts such as “social media” and “sites.” Because these concepts are constantly evolving, courts would be wise to draft broad, elastic definitions in their decisions that will withstand the test of time, lest their conclusions be rendered outdated as soon as the ink dries.