Tag

facebook

Browsing

By Margaret Taylor.

Apple’s iOS 14.5 update has triggered an unstoppable collapse in Facebook’s ability to collect user data

It is not unusual for the bosses of Apple and Facebook to be at loggerheads with each other over privacy. Back in 2018 Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg accused his Apple counterpart Tim Cook of being “extremely glib” for making scathing remarks about Facebook’s involvement in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Weeks later Apple introduced privacy controls that hampered Facebook’s ability to collect user data via Apple devices.

Things moved up a notch at the end of last year after Apple revealed that app-tracking transparency would be installed as part of its latest system update. Until iOS 14.5 came along, apps like Facebook could automatically track what people were looking at on their phones and sell targeted ad space accordingly. The update was designed so users were asked their permission for the tracking to happen first.

Facebook responded to the move by taking out full-page ads in the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal accusing Apple of posing a threat to the “10 million businesses [who] use our advertising tools each month to find new customers, hire employees and engage with their communities”. Cook retaliated by tweeting that users “should have the choice over the data that is being collected about them and how it’s used”.

It may have looked like little more than a war of words between two rivals, but Facebook – which warned of the “headwind” posed by iOS 14.5 in its 2020 accounts – was right to be concerned. Since the update went live last month iPhone owners have been opting out of data tracking in their droves. According to Flurry Analytics, 85 per cent of worldwide users clicked ‘ask app not to track’ when prompted, with the proportion rising to 94 per cent in the US. Apple did not respond to requests to comment.

For an organisation like Facebook, whose entire business model is based around collecting, analysing, selling on and profiting from data about its users’ likes and dislikes, such numbers could be devastating.

“It’s a huge blow for Facebook,” says Jake Moore, cybersecurity specialist at ESET UK. “They have major issues when another huge tech firm such as Apple comes along and says privacy is important. When Apple is asking users not to track – and that language is important – if anything it’s sticking a couple of fingers up at Facebook.”

This strategy is important for a business that wants to position itself as being above the privacy concerns that have dogged the technology industry. Lawyer and data privacy specialist Heather Anson, director of Anson Evaluate, says that for a company that can make money from its hardware regardless of regulatory constraints, it’s reasonably easy for Apple to score points over its rivals by doing that. “Apple is very good at using these types of issues to make itself look better,” she says. “There was a case in San Bernardino where a guy shot his co-workers and the FBI wanted to get the log-ins to his iPhone. Apple said no because it would weaken security, but that was technically more of a publicity stunt than something that was legally binding, they could have handed it over.”

By taking this stance now, Anson believes, Apple is pre-empting strict data protection laws that have been mooted in US states including New York and Virginia as well as in the European Union. As with the EU’s Draft Digital Services Act, the US proposals, which are modelled on an existing Californian law, would require user permission to be given for data to be used. It is a carbon copy of what iOS 14.5 has already introduced.

While that puts Apple ahead of the curve, it creates an even bigger problem for Facebook. That is in part because it will further restrict its ability to target ads to individual users, but also because the more these rule changes are spoken about the more it shines a spotlight on exactly what it is Facebook does with user data.

Facebook still makes billions from advertising. But the world in which it operates is changing fast. How Facebook attempts to keep pace will be telling. Depending on take-up, Facebook’s digital currency diem, which will be piloted later this year, could also create masses of data due to the way digital transactions are logged by the technology that powers them. Meanwhile, WhatsApp, which Facebook acquired in 2014, is to start gradually switching off functionality for users who refuse to let it share information with Facebook about the businesses they have communicated with.

Even taken together, they are likely to be a poor substitute for what Facebook will lose if the iOS 14.5 opt-outs continue apace. For now, Facebook is continuing to frame the advent of the Apple update as an affront to the smaller businesses that benefit from its platform. The impact on its advertising revenues will, it says, “be much less than what will befall small businesses” that rely on its algorithms to promote their wares. “Many small businesses won’t grow, continue hiring or even survive as a result of an impact of this magnitude,” it says.

Similar to Apple’s strategy of proclaiming itself a privacy champion, it is a smart tactic for Facebook to put itself on the side of the little guy, particularly as laws such as the EU Digital Services Act remain in their infancy. “The EU act will be lobbied and debated over and won’t be passed for another couple of years then it will be another couple more before it comes in,” says Anson. “By that time Facebook will have done what it needs to do to comply and it will have bullied the EU by lobbying to get something it likes.”

It’s clear that Facebook needs that time to come up with a strategy that will allow it to thrive without unfettered access to data at its core. David Wehner, the social media giant’s chief financial officer, wrote in the company’s fourth quarter 2020 earnings report that “over time, we hope to help businesses by providing more on-site conversion opportunities through initiatives like shops, and also click to messaging ads”. A blog posted on Facebook’s corporate site last month says it is “important to acknowledge that the ways that digital advertising collects and uses data will evolve” and that Facebook is “investing in new approaches to privacy-enhancing technology and building a personalised advertising ecosystem that relies on less data”.

Less data is not no data, though. The problem Facebook now faces is that as time passes and developments like iOS 14.5 make users more aware of how their data is used to manipulate them they might not want to give any of it up at all.

“Over the next five to ten years people will start to learn the importance of privacy and keeping their data,” says Moore. “Facebook’s business model is all about tracking – they are not a social media company, they are an advertising company and if they can track you they can make more money. Apple has got nothing to worry about, but Facebook could be gone in ten years.”

By Margaret Taylor

Sourced from WIRED

By

Facebook is looking to find its voice with the roll-out of a series of audio features over the coming months.

A new category of audio products and features serves as a battle cry to Clubhouse, the invitation-only audio platform that has generated significant word of mouth, as Facebook joins increasingly aggressive moves to bend the ear of listeners.

What is Facebook launching?

  • Over the coming months, Facebook will unleash a succession of audio-centric features, such as Live Audio Rooms for people to participate in live conversations – a direct ’homage’ to the popular Clubhouse app.
  • Reportedly ready for an April launch, the literal chat room also bears more than a passing resemblance to Twitter’s Spaces feature.
  • The full-throated embrace of sound waves also includes the launch of Soundbites, a utility for people to generate and share brief audio clips of their own making.
  • Both facilities are expected to be made available to a small number of creators in a matter of weeks with users also able to make money from either format, although Facebook hasn’t clarified if this will be open to anyone or solely established creators.
  • Last but not least, Facebook will also permit members to listen to podcasts without leaving the confines of the walled garden.

Why should marketers care?

  • Facebook’s enthusiastic embrace of a new medium of communication closely mirrors that of competitors such as the invitation-only Clubhouse app to enable natural-sounding, real-world engagements.
  • The resulting opportunities span the full spectrum of human speech, providing Facebook with a megaphone to amplify its utility as a home for speeches, lectures, conversations and conferences.
  • Calls to embrace sound have only grown louder since the imposition of lockdowns, while the rapid growth of Clubhouse has provided ample proof that public demand is rapacious.
  • Laying claim to his share of this growing market, Mark Zuckerberg told The Verge editor Casey Newton at the launch: ”Audio as a medium just allows for longer-form discussions and exploring ideas. You can get into topics that frankly are a lot harder to with other mediums. And audio, I think, is just a lot more accessible because you can multitask while listening.”
  • Zuckerberg’s ears doubtless pricked up upon hearing that Clubhouse has been downloaded 4.7m times since its April 2020 (according to Apptopia), with 3.7m of those installs occurring in the opening months of 2021.
  • This rush of sign-ups was further fueled by an appearance by Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg on a Clubhouse talk show, further elevating its profile.
  • Clubhouse operates using an ad-free model but offers marketers the chance to host events and discussions of their choosing, enabling them to target very specific audiences.
  • This has already been embraced by Pernod Ricard, which hosted a series of themed conversations to coincide with Black History Month, joining other brands such as Milk Bar, Kool-Aid and Politico which have built a presence on the platform.
  • The Drum’s own Sam Scott recently delved into the opportunities presented by this soundscape for brands by exploring the opportunities and the pitfalls of opening your mouth.

By

Sourced from The Drum

By Lisa Montenegro

Social media has long been in the spotlight; however, over the last few years, the giants have been under fire for numerous reasons. Pick your platform — Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok. They’ve all been embroiled in problems and scandals, with public and political outrage often the result. Yet many of us still flock to them in droves. And where the public goes so do businesses and marketers. If public opinion is often so low for social media platforms, why do we still use them?

A good start to answering this is remembering what exactly the giants of the industry have done, and there’s no better one to start with than Facebook. The social media behemoth has more than 2.7 billion monthly active users and by 2025 is expected to be used by just over 69% of the U.S. population. Yet even those who have no time for social media or have little care for the news likely know about at least one of the multitude of controversies the social media giant has found itself in. Tax avoidance, censorship, the Cambridge Analytica scandal and how the platform handles users’ data are just the start of the dizzying list. Then there’s the scrutiny it has come under for shirking its responsibility to monitor what is posted on the site, such as hate speech.

And this is not to say the other major social media sites have not been in similar trouble. Instagram, YouTube and Twitter have all been accused of not being proactive enough when it comes to regulating what people post online, as well as a whole array of other problems, like taking a rape threat and making it into an advertisement or fake Twitter accounts trying to sway public opinion. Such controversies have been met with public disgust and anger, prompting politicians to move toward more regulation.

All of the incidents above have been major controversies, but social media platforms also have made smaller moves like algorithm and design changes and the infamous Instagram shadowbans, which, aside from being a mild irritant to daily users, have created major hurdles for marketers and businesses. In early March, many Instagram users suddenly found that likes were no longer shown on their posts. This turned out to be a trial of a feature that accidentally included too many people. But here in Canada, this is how it has been for two years now. Add in changes to Facebook’s algorithm to put friends and family first, and suddenly you’re likely dealing with a loss of impressions, reach and likes.

You would think with all of this that social media platforms would be losing millions of followers, right?

Facebook actually saw its U.S. and Canadian user bases decrease toward the end of last year, but the drop has done little in the grand scheme of things. The social media site still recorded huge revenue and gained more new users in Asia and the rest of the world. Instagram has over a billion monthly users, and that number is predicted to continue rising. Twitter has over 322 million users and will likely continue gaining them. And TikTok set a record for app installs last year after surpassing 2 billion downloads. Despite all the outrage and dislike of social media sites, people still flock to them in the millions and billions. But why?

The simple answer is that they connect us. It’s been over a year since the Covid-19 pandemic began, and lockdown measures closed stores and cut off our usual social interactions. The importance of sites like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and many others for keeping people connected not just to the people they are close to but also to strangers or people in need of support has truly been shown.

We live in an age when we can publish a post in Boston that can be seen within seconds in Berlin. We can communicate with friends around the world in an instant, and often the main way we do this is through social media. We can connect with those with the same interests. We can find jobs and network. And businesses can connect with audiences on a larger scale and reach more potential customers. Social media is a major part of how we stay connected. Last year proved that.

But what does that mean for those of us in marketing and PR or running businesses trying to connect with our audiences? We must go where the customers are. But this leaves us at the mercy of algorithms and major platform changes. When Instagram decides to tweak its systems again or a social media site finds itself grappling with a government, what can you do? Major changes can have serious effects, and before you know it, your reach and interactions can drop drastically. So how do you work around this?

To use an old phrase, don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Diversifying between multiple social media platforms may mean posting in more places, but it can offer many benefits. The main one is that you are not dependent on a single social media site. If one is hit by regulations or changes its algorithms suddenly and accidentally takes out your page, you have others to fall back on. It also can provide you with a much larger reach. While a large section of your audience may be on a single platform, that doesn’t account for all of them. With a presence on other social media platforms, your brand can reach more people and possibly a wider range of demographics.

It will be interesting to see from here what happens to the social media giants with regulations and their relationships with audiences. For those of us in Canada, it would be nice if Instagram could let us see the number of likes on our posts again.

Feature Image Credit: getty

By Lisa Montenegro

Founder & President at Digital Marketing Experts – DMX Marketing, a Premier Google Partner Agency located in Toronto, Canada.

Sourced from Forbes

By

Facebook Email Search v1.0 can process 5 million email addresses per day, researcher says.

Still smarting from last month’s dump of phone numbers belonging to 500 million Facebook users, the social media giant has a new privacy crisis to contend with: a tool that, on a mass scale, links the Facebook accounts associated with email addresses, even when users choose settings to keep them from being public.

A video circulating on Tuesday showed a researcher demonstrating a tool named Facebook Email Search v1.0, which he said could link Facebook accounts to as many as 5 million email addresses per day. The researcher—who said he went public after Facebook said it didn’t think the weakness he found was “important” enough to be fixed—fed the tool a list of 65,000 email addresses and watched what happened next.

“As you can see from the output log here, I’m getting a significant amount of results from them,” the researcher said as the video showed the tool crunching the address list. “I’ve spent maybe $10 to buy 200-odd Facebook accounts. And within three minutes, I have managed to do this for 6,000 [email] accounts.”

Ars obtained the video on condition the video not be shared. A full audio transcript appears at the end of this post.

Dropping the ball

In a statement, Facebook said: “It appears that we erroneously closed out this bug bounty report before routing to the appropriate team. We appreciate the researcher sharing the information and are taking initial actions to mitigate this issue while we follow up to better understand their findings.”

A Facebook representative didn’t respond to a question asking if the company told the researcher it didn’t consider the vulnerability important enough to warrant a fix. The representative said Facebook engineers believe they have mitigated the leak by disabling the technique shown in the video.

The researcher, whom Ars agreed not to identify, said that Facebook Email Search exploited a front-end vulnerability that he reported to Facebook recently but that “they [Facebook] do not consider to be important enough to be patched.” Earlier this year, Facebook had a similar vulnerability that was ultimately fixed.

“This is essentially the exact same vulnerability,” the researcher says. “And for some reason, despite me demonstrating this to Facebook and making them aware of it, they have told me directly that they will not be taking action against it.”

On Twitter

Facebook has been under fire not just for providing the means for these massive collections of data, but also the way it actively tries to promote the idea they pose minimal harm to Facebook users. An email Facebook inadvertently sent to a reporter at the Dutch publication DataNews instructed public relations people to “frame this as a broad industry issue and normalize the fact that this activity happens regularly.” Facebook has also made the distinction between scraping and hacks or breaches.

It’s not clear if anyone actively exploited this bug to build a massive database, but it certainly wouldn’t be surprising. “I believe this to be quite a dangerous vulnerability, and I would like help in getting this stopped,” the researcher said.

Here’s the written transcript of the video:

So, what I would like to demonstrate here is an active vulnerability within Facebook, which allows malicious users to query, um, email addresses within Facebook and have Facebook return, any matching users.

Um, this works with a front end vulnerability with Facebook, which I’ve reported to them, made them aware of, um, that they do not consider to be important enough to be patched, uh, which I would consider to be quite a significant, uh, privacy violation and a big problem.

This method is currently being used by software, which is available right now within the hacking community.

Currently it’s being used to compromise Facebook accounts for the purpose of taking over pages groups and, uh, Facebook advertising accounts for obviously monetary gain. Um, I’ve set up this visual example within no JS.

What I’ve done here is I’ve taken, uh, 250 Facebook accounts, newly registered Facebook accounts, which I’ve purchased online for about $10.

Um, I have queried or I’m querying 65,000 email addresses. And as you can see from the output log here, I’m getting a significant amount of results from them.

If I have a look at the output file, you can see I have a user ID name and the email address matching the input email addresses, which I have used. Now I have, as I say, I’ve spent maybe $10 using two to buy 200-odd Facebook accounts. And within three minutes, I have managed to do this for 6,000 accounts.

I have tested this at a larger scale, and it is possible to use this to extract feasibly up to 5 million email addresses per day.

Now there was an existing vulnerability with Facebook, uh, earlier this year, which was patched. This is essentially the exact same vulnerability. And for some reason, despite me demonstrating this to Facebook and making them aware of it, um, they have told me directly that they will not be taking action against it.

So I am reaching out to people such as yourselves, uh, in hope that you can use your influence or contacts to get this stopped, because I am very, very confident.

This is not only a huge privacy breach, but this will result in a new, another large data dump, including emails, which is going to allow undesirable parties, not only to have this, uh, email to user ID matches, but to append the email address to phone numbers, which have been available in previous breaches, um, I’m quite happy to demonstrate the front end vulnerability so you can see how this works.

I’m not going to show it in this video simply because I don’t want the video to be, um, I don’t want the method to be exploited, but if I would be quite happy to, to demonstrate it, um, if that is necessary, but as you can see, you can see continues to output more and more and more. I believe this to be quite a dangerous vulnerability and I would like help in getting this stopped.

By

Dan is the Security Editor at Ars Technica, which he joined in 2012 after working for The Register, the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, and other publications.
Email [email protected] // Twitter @dangoodin001

Sourced from ars TECHNICA

By Jeremy Bowman

A new ad product could help unlock a valuable new revenue stream for the social media giant.

Connected TV is probably the fastest-growing advertising sector out there at the moment.

The transition from linear television to streaming has unleashed a boom in streaming-based digital ads, also known as Connected TV, which offer better targeting than traditional TV ads and give both the media publisher and advertiser much more data about who is watching.

A November 2020 report by eMarketer.com forecasts that the CTV market will grow 40% in the U.S. to $11.36 billion this year, and the market should continue to expand rapidly as a number of new services have just entered the streaming TV market.

And it now appears that digital advertising kingpin Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) could be the latest company to have its eye on the CTV prize.

Dynamic ads for streaming

On Monday, Facebook announced a new ad product: dynamic ads for streaming. The tool allows Facebook and Instagram users to click on an ad for a streaming service and see personalized, relevant titles based on their own interests on Facebook and Instagram. The solution replaces the old way of doing business, in which a streamer would have to advertise individual titles to show off their content. Now streaming advertisers can set up their campaigns once and automatically generate unique ads for each title, rather than having to create individual ones for each time.

James Smith, head of entertainment at Facebook, explained, “With Dynamic Ads for Streaming, advertisers no longer have to manually create new campaigns for each individual title. Once an advertiser uploads their content catalog to Facebook, the dynamic ads deliver personalized recommendations, giving people a similar personalized experience they’re used to seeing from their streaming services.” Advertisers that have tested the new product, like Brazilian streaming service Globoplay, have seen strong engagement so far.

It’s unclear if Facebook has a goal with these ads beyond their current implementation, but they could serve as a beachhead to build relationships with streaming services from which the company can further expand into streaming and Connected TV. The company’s user data is unique, and no other social platform can identify users’ streaming content preferences the way Facebook can — and that’s a valuable asset to streamers. Additionally, the company’s user profiles offer considerable value for ad targeting, so an account obtained through a Facebook ad could potentially have more value than a direct sign-up.

An old idea

Facebook made a play for the CTV ad market back in 2016, but it eventually shut down its audience network for the category in 2018. Part of the reason was that Roku, the leading streaming device maker and a powerful force in CTV, blocked Facebook from selling ads on its platform, as it saw advertising as a valuable business.

There were other challenges as well. Facebook didn’t separate its streaming ad inventory on the audience network, and advertiser awareness of the CTV option seemed to be too low. Additionally, Facebook’s base of advertisers didn’t align well with a product that users can’t easily click on. CTV tends to be more suitable for “brand advertising,” or brand-awareness-building campaigns, rather than the kind of performance marketing with easily trackable data that Facebook typically serves.

However, the Connected TV market was much smaller in 2018, and Facebook may have a different experience today. Since it pulled the plug, ad-based services like Hulu, now owned by Walt Disney, have grown significantly, and a number of others have hit the market, like Comcast‘s Peacock, ViacomCBS‘s Paramount+, and Discovery Communications’ Discovery+. In other words, CTV has reached a tipping point over the last year, so it’s not surprising that Facebook might want a piece of the market.

The company is at a disadvantage against fellow tech giants like Apple, Alphabet, and Amazon, all of which offer their own streaming devices and services — and Facebook Watch, which was billed as the company’s answer to YouTube, has underwhelmed since its 2017 launch. But the dynamic ads product is a reminder that the company can do things with customer targeting that none of its peers can, and that could give it a unique inroad into streaming ads.

It’s still unclear if the new product will lead to anything more than just a convenient way for streaming services to attract new users, but it’s a reminder to investors that even as the stock is priced for slowing growth, Facebook has plenty of optionality in its arsenal — including in VR/AR, e-commerce, payments, and new ad products like dynamic ads for streaming.

It’s a good bet that at least one of those emerging businesses will pay off big down the road.

Should you invest $1,000 in Facebook, Inc. right now?

Before you consider Facebook, Inc., you’ll want to hear this.

Investing legends and Motley Fool Co-founders David and Tom Gardner just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now… and Facebook, Inc. wasn’t one of them.

The online investing service they’ve run for nearly two decades, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has beaten the stock market by over 4X.* And right now, they think there are 10 stocks that are better buys.

Feature Image Credit: Getty Images.

By Jeremy Bowman

Sourced from The Motley Fool

By Jason Aten

It isn’t about tracking, but about giving you a choice.

Feature Image Credit: Tim Cook. Getty Images

By Jason Aten

Sourced from Inc.

By Todd Spangler

Facebook says it wants to “empower” independent writers and journalists by letting them make money from their work.

The social giant on Tuesday confirmed plans to launch a new platform for writers to self-publish their content, grow their audience and make money through monetization tools starting with subscriptions. Facebook said the platform will roll out in the coming months in the U.S.

Facebook’s new platform will face a range of competitors in the expanding newsletter/self-publishing space, including Substack and Twitter, which is gearing up to launch “Super Follows,” which will let individual users and publishers earn money from subscriptions. In January, Twitter acquired Revue, a startup that lets writers self-publish subscription newsletters.

“A large part of this initiative is aimed at supporting independent local journalists who are often the lone voice covering a given community,” Campbell Brown, Facebook’s VP of global news partnerships, and product manager for news Anthea Watson Strong wrote in a blog post.

The move also comes after Facebook’s spat with the Australian government over the country’s new law requiring internet platforms to pay for news content — and as other countries contemplate similar measures. On Monday, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp announced a three-year pact with Facebook covering the media company’s Australian news outlets.

Facebook’s plans include the intro of a free, self-publishing tool with “robust styling options” to create individual websites and email newsletters. That will be integrated with Facebook Pages to enable publishing across multimedia formats including photos, live videos and stories, according to the company. In addition, indie writers and journalists will be able to create Facebook Groups and tap into analytics to understand how their content is performing.

The company also intends to launch features “to help audiences easily discover new content and writers,” according to the Facebook execs.

Facebook says that since 2018 it has invested $600 million to support journalism and recently said it plans to invest $1 billion in news over the next three years.

By Todd Spangler

Sourced from Variety

“One cannot be betrayed if one has no people.”

[Warning: Violent and gruesome metaphor ahead.]

In The Usual Suspects (1995), there’s a scene in which the true extent of ur-villain Keyser Söze’s evil is clarified for the viewer. A gang of Hungarians has burst into Söze’s home and taken his wife and children hostage. “They realized that, to be in power, you didn’t need guns or money or even numbers,” one character, Verbal Kint, narrates. “You just needed the will to do what the other guy wouldn’t.”

The Hungarians want Söze’s territory, and to show how serious their intentions are, one of them slices the throat of Söze’s youngest boy, to the obvious horror of his wife. The Hungarian grabs a girl and makes it clear that she’ll be next.

Söze shoots two of the Hungarians and then does the unthinkable — remember, he’s the bad guy! — and shoots his own children, one by one, and his wife. Söze tells the Hungarian “he would rather see his family dead than live another day after this.” He lets the last Hungarian go, the better to spread the legend of the villain so heartless he would murder his own family to make a point.

As Verbal puts it: “Keaton always said: ‘I don’t believe in God, but I’m afraid of him.’ Well, I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Söze.”1

In Australia, Facebook just shot the hostages. (Metaphorically, of course.) 

Australian regulators have been arguing for months that Facebook derives huge value from the news stories shared on its platform — and that, as a result, Facebook should be forced to compensate the Australian publishers who create them. As with the Hungarians above, Australia’s play can be simplified to: We have something you find incredibly valuable, and unless you give us what we want, we can destroy it.

To which Facebook, by unilaterally banning Australian news stories, responded: You have a really messed up idea of who finds what valuable here. Here, watch me shoot the hostages and show how illusory your “leverage” really is.

It took less than a week for Australia to backtrack. The mandatory arbitration that was the key to Australia’s proposed new law has been reduced to a matter of theory. Facebook can now decide to offer different publishers whatever amount it wants, including nothing at all, without risk of penalty. And Facebook retains the right to shoot more hostages whenever it likes, as Campbell Brown’s statement makes clear:

After further discussions with the Australian government, we have come to an agreement that will allow us to support the publishers we choose to, including small and local publishers. We’re restoring news on Facebook in Australia in the coming days. Going forward, the government has clarified we will retain the ability to decide if news appears on Facebook so that we won’t automatically be subject to a forced negotiation. It’s always been our intention to support journalism in Australia and around the world, and we’ll continue to invest in news globally and resist efforts by media conglomerates to advance regulatory frameworks that do not take account of the true value exchange between publishers and platforms like Facebook.

The money is not and has never been the issue here. Facebook and Google are both perfectly willing to throw money at publishers to hold off regulation. (I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a petty cash drawer somewhere in Menlo Park labeled Hush Money For Publishers In Anglophone Countries (Small).) As I wrote last year (and, I daresay, it’s held up):

From the duopoly’s perspective, the biggest problem with paying for all the news coursing through their digital veins isn’t the money. (They have plenty of money.) It’s that paying for news in any systemic way would attack their core advantage as platforms: organizing other people’s content.

Say you think Google owes The New York Times money for including all of its news stories in search. Fine. Do they also owe me money for including my old blog from the early 2000s? It’s in Google’s index too. How about Breitbart? How about The Daily Stormer or Stormfront? What about your tweets? DairyQueen.com? All of them are digital content that contributes some sort of notional value to Google as a product. Maybe you think you can draw the line somewhere, but where — and how do you apply it to an index of billions of websites?

Should Facebook pay publishers based on how much value they add to News Feed? Okay — then the biggest check goes to the Daily Mail, and The Daily Wire gets as much as The New York Times.

No, any sort of systematic, performance-driven payments to publishers based on the value they offer platforms are a no-go. So Facebook and Google have responded by looking for other ways to deal with the PR headache by getting money to news companies.

Hence the various Journalism Projects and News Initiatives of Google and Facebook, which started with innovation grants and have since grown to “Okay, we’ll pay publishers some money, fine, but only for this side product that no one really cares about, and we pick who and how much to pay.” 

The tech giants have money, and they have power. They don’t mind giving up money if it gives them something in return: a friendlier regulatory environment, or silence from cranky publishers. What they don’t want to give up is the power: the power to pick winners (whether via algorithm or cash transfer), the power to decide what it’s willing to pay, and — most importantly — the power to maintain their main advantage as platforms, which is to aggregate huge amounts of free information and profit from all the ways they can organize, distribute, and monetize it all.

If there were suddenly a law that says Google has to pay for some kinds of information in its search index — or that Facebook has to pay to have some kinds of information in News Feed — that core element of their model would be at risk. Suddenly, instead of being a toll road that commuters pay to use, you have to pay drivers for the privilege of using you? That’s the unthinkable.

As Google’s Melanie Silva told Australian officials: “The concept of paying a very small group of website or content creators for appearing purely in our organic search results sets a dangerous precedent for us that presents unmanageable risk from a product and business-model point of view.”

The thing about Keyser Söze vs. the Hungarians is that there’s no side to root for. They’re both bad guys with bad intentions, so instead of some sort of moral valence, all you’re left to compare is the raw power on display by both sides.

Facebook is a corporate nightmare that has done very real and meaningful damage to democracy. Australian regulators carry water for Rupert Murdoch and have been proposing a policy that would, as Tim Berners-Lee says, make the web “unworkable.” But a bad company facing bad regulations distills down to pure power, and by shooting the hostages, Facebook made it very clear where that still lies.

Or, to put it another way: “How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?”

Sourced from NiemanLab

By

 

Facebook, following in Google’s footsteps, says it plans to invest $1 billion to “support the news industry” over the next three years.

The social networking giant, which has been tussling with Australia over a law that would make social platforms pay news organizations, said it has invested $600 million since 2018 in news.

Google said in October that it would pay publishers $1 billion over the next three years.

News companies want Google and Facebook to pay for the news that appears on their platforms. Governments in Europe and Australia are increasingly sympathetic to this point of view. The two tech companies suck up the majority of U.S. digital advertising dollars, which — among other problems — has hurt publishers.

Facebook said on Tuesday it would lift a ban on news links in Australian after the government agreed to tweak proposed legislation that would help publishers negotiate payments with Facebook and Google. Facebook was criticized for its ban, which also temporarily cut access to government pandemic, public health and emergency services on the social networking site.

Facebook said Tuesday that the changes allow it to choose which publishers it will support and indicated that it will now start striking such deals in Australia.

Google had already been signing content licensing deals with Australian media companies, and says that it has arrangements with more than 50 publishers in the country and more than 500 globally.

There may be more such regulation in other countries. Microsoft is working with European publishers to push big tech platforms to pay for news. European Union countries are working on adopting copyright rules that allow news companies and publishers to negotiate payments.

By

Sourced from PBS

By Rimal Farrukh

  • Shopify landed a partnership with Facebook to expand seller checkout through Shop Pay on Facebook and Instagram.
  • According to Shopify, 28 percent of young online shoppers made purchases through social media.

Shopify announced a partnership with Facebook to expand its online checkout platform Shop Pay to all Shopify merchants selling across Facebook and Instagram. The expansion will enable Shop Pay as a payment option on Facebook Pay for consumers on Facebook and Instagram.

Currently the feature is available in the U.S on Facebook Pay for Shopify merchants using checkout on Instagram. In the coming weeks, it will be accessible to Shopify sellers in the U.S using checkout on Facebook.

“Facebook continues to be one of our most popular sales and marketing channels for our merchants,” said Carl Rivera, general manager at Shopify and head of product at Shop Pay.

“For example, at the start of the pandemic from March through April, marketing on Facebook and Instagram via Shopify’s channel integration saw 36 percent growth in monthly active users — a trend that continues to rise — paving the way for the very natural expansion of Shop Pay onto these platforms.”

According to Rivera, Shopify sees social shopping as a growing area of commerce driven largely by a younger demographic who are more likely to use social media to discover new brands and shop.

Shopify’s Future of Commerce report states that 28 percent of younger online shoppers said they purchased via social media, compared to 20 percent of middle aged online shoppers and 8 percent of older consumers. It also demonstrates that 54 percent of younger consumers who purchase from independent retailers discover brands through social media compared to 43 percent of middle aged consumers aged between 35 and 54 and 25 percent of consumers older than 55.

“Social commerce is a very effective tool for e-commerce that has only just begun gaining momentum and widespread usage,” said Alexander M. Kehoe, the co-founder of digital marketing and strategy agency Caveni Digital Solutions. “Listing your products on every channel available is fairly standard for most e-commerce sellers. The inclusion of even more easily accessible channels to place products on means that e-commerce providers are positioned to benefit significantly.”

In addition to its social media expansion, Shop Pay allows users to track orders and see the carbon emissions offset from the deliveries of their purchases. According to Shopify, Shop Pay has offset 75,000 tons of carbon emissions, which is the equivalent of 85 million trees protected in the Peruvian rainforest.

“With 53 percent of consumers saying they prefer green or sustainable products, we’re now making it possible for more consumers who check out on Facebook and Instagram to shop sustainably,” said Rivera.

In 2020. Shop Pay processed more than 137 million orders and by the end of the year and has facilitated nearly $20 billion in cumulative GMV since its launch in 2017. A Shopify study found that checkout on Shop Pay is 70 percent faster than a typical checkout, with a 1.72x higher conversion rate.

According to Joe Sinkwitz, CEO of influencer marketing network Intellifluence, Shop Pay’s social media expansion will open up significant business opportunities for social media influencers. Through increased monetary incentives, influencers will be in the position to market Shopify enabled products which will ultimately encourage more purchases.

“From an influencer perspective, we’re seeing a lot of excitement surrounding the Shopify integrations into Instagram and Facebook, as that will give creators a sizable increase in monetization capacity, and will be great for those brands hosted on Shopify to have the additional sales channel,” said Sinkwitz. “We expect the integration will in time be a primary driver of influencer marketing requests, in terms of activating Instagram as a more direct sales channel.”

By Rimal Farrukh

Sourced from TEARSHEET