Spotify’s Values

Spotify provides a streaming music service to millions of users, and like any media platform is legally entitled to pick and choose which artists and content to carry and feature. In what is very likely a response to the #TimesUp and #MuteRKelly movements, Spotify’s recent decision has become the subject of debate by both artists and listeners.

According to Billboard magazine’s website,

As part of the new policy, Spotify also de-playlisted works by R. Kelly, who has faced a slew of sexual abuse allegations he denies but who “never has been convicted of a crime, nor does he have any pending criminal charges against him,” Kelly’s team said in a statement Thursday, noting that the “lyrics he writes express love and desire” while Spotify “promotes numerous other artists who are convicted felons, others who have been arrested on charges of domestic violence and artists who sing lyrics that are violent and anti-women in nature.”

To be clear, I’m not a fan of R. Kelly, or XXXTentacion, but this new policy by Spotify raises some important questions about how sanctions are applied to artists/performers who have been accused of bad behavior. In the past it was often a criminal conviction that was the tipping point that led to censure. But in the absence of a criminal charge, on what basis is Spotify making this decision? And will this move by Spotify be followed by similar action by Apple Music, RCA, and Ticketmaster: other entities that have a stake in Kelly’s music? And what about other artists that have been accused of mis-behavior?

Spotify is trying to make clear their decision-making process and published a webpage for artists that details what kinds of private behavior may lead to censure by the company. According to Spotify,

We don’t censor content because of an artist’s or creator’s behavior, but we want our editorial decisions – what we choose to program – to reflect our values. When an artist or creator does something that is especially harmful or hateful (for example, violence against children and sexual violence), it may affect the ways we work with or support that artist or creator.

This problem is not limited to Spotify and we can expect to see similar responses from social media sites, especially content-communities such as YouTube and Reddit, when cultural norms are breached and offended individuals/groups bring complaints.

 

 

 

Regulation of Cyberspace

Social media, and by that I mostly mean Facebook, is a mess. We all know that it wastes too much of our time, makes us more agitated and irritable than we should be, and collects information about us and uses that intel to manipulate us. We’ve known most of that for some time now. But seeing the undercover Channel 4 video of the Cambridge Analytica executives has shaken people who had been fully in the techno-utopian camp when it came to the internet and Web 2.0 services like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Suddenly the brave new world of the internet doesn’t look so bright and shiny.

In preparation for teaching a unit on new media and regulation I was reviewing my notes about the history of regulation of the internet…which is pretty short. Not that there haven’t been attempts to regulate “cyberspace”…but as early observers already noted, the internet does not take kindly to outsiders telling it how to go about its business. The early credo, “The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it” is testimony to the structural logic of the internet and explains the technical challenge of controlling something that was built to withstand external attacks.

Much of the early rhetoric was hyperbolic and now seems a bit silly. As the luster and new-car-smell has faded, we look back on those early utopian ideals as innocent and naive. Here’s an example from 1996. The speaker/author of A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace is John Perry Barlow; a cattle rancher, techno-philosopher, and lyricist for The Grateful Dead.

While many of the early attempts to regulate were focused on the content of the internet, e.g. the Communications Decency Act, other legislation focused on intellectual property and piracy, e.g. SOPA and PIPA.

The most recent piece of legislation, H.R. 1865 aka FOSTA-SESTA, if signed by President Trump, will modify the 1996 Communications Decency Act Section 230 which has provided cover for internet companies and shielded them from legal repercussions related to the actions of users on their sites.

So, what does Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have to do with any of this? Simply that users are starting to question whether big internet companies can be trusted to do the right thing without oversight. (Others aren’t so sure).

But if it is time for regulators to tell Craigslist, Reddit, and Backpage (among others) to clean up their Personal/Massage/Dating ads in the interest of combating sex trafficking, perhaps it’s also time for regulators to tell Facebook when it is and isn’t okay to harvest and sell our data to political operatives.

No one naively believes that this will end the sex trafficking problem…just as no one believes that Zuckerberg’s promise to do a better job handling the personal data of 1.5 billion users will end the kinds of abuse exposed by last week’s investigative journalism. But it may be a start.

Update (April 9, 2018): Since this was initially posted, Craigslist has eliminated its Personals section as a response to FOSTA-SESTA. Also, the FBI shut down Backpage and charged its founder Michael Lacey. Backpage has seen strong growth after Craigslist closed its Erotic Services section if 2010.

Democracy, Data, and Dirty Tricks

It’s no good fighting an election campaign on the facts, because actually it’s all about emotion.

This is just one quote from an investigative report conducted by Channel 4 News in the UK. The person quoted above is an employee of Cambridge Analytica. You may have heard of the big data marketing company when their use of data harvested from 50 million Facebook users was revealed this week. The use of big data in political campaigns is not new, but it is being pushed to new heights by companies who appear to be unconstrained by established ethical norms. Here’s the entire Channel 4 video…

While opposition research is not new, there appear to be new efforts to push the limits of op research to include entrapment, bribery, and investigative reporting motivated by a political agenda. This is not just muck raking, but rather “muck making.”

Just to be clear, the use of Facebook’s data is not a data breach or hack. This is how big data works and everything you do online is being scooped up by someone who wants to use that information to advance their agenda. It might be selling you something like a new pair of socks, or maybe a health insurance policy, or maybe…a president.

Want to make sure that your data on Facebook won’t end up compromised? Electronic Frontier Foundation has you covered with this explainer on how to change your Facebook API settings.

I’ll leave you with one more quote from the video above…just to make it clear that the stakes couldn’t be higher.

“… we just put information into the bloodstream of the internet, and then, and then watch it grow, give it a little push every now and again… like a remote control. It has to happen without anyone thinking, ‘that’s propaganda’, because the moment you think ‘that’s propaganda’, the next question is, ‘who’s put that out?’.”

More at Nieman Labs.

Media Violence: Cause or Effect?

The age-old question about media content and make-believe violence comes up every time we have a horrific incident of violence in real-life. Movies, video games, and now fully-immersive VR are the focus when well-meaning crusaders attempting to explain, or reduce, violence and mayhem in our schools and streets.

An editorial by Jeremy Bailenson, director of Stanford’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab and a professor in the Department of Communication, asks serious questions about modern mass media and its consequences. It is definitely worth a few minutes of your time before continuing with this blog post.

I just had a Facebook “discussion” with a colleague who is a Clinical Psychologist and his take is that the research connecting social learning theory with violent media exposure fails to draw a direct cause-and-effect line between the two. But I would like to suggest that this failure to provide significant research findings is more about the limitations of our research methodology and ethical restraints imposed on experiments with human subjects than it is about real effects. The fact that the military uses video games and VR to train soldiers is important, and it suggests that there is evidence that the newest technologies in video gaming and VR can make players more effective shooters/killers in real life.

Fully immersive VR with input control devices that mimic real weapons, and simulated virtual environments that can map the game onto real (not virtual) physical spaces (e.g. a 3-D simulation of a high school) could be a deadly combination.

If we’re serious about taking away “assault” weapons we might also consider taking away “assault” media. Or perhaps, as Bailenson suggests, video game companies should follow the lead of major retailers who are pulling certain products and increasing the age requirements for purchasing. Software manufacturers could avoid regulatory oversight by imposing their own restraints on what they make available on the open market. But I wouldn’t suggest holding your breath.

Tools of the Trade

It used to be that making a major motion picture was something that you could only do with the full support of a major Hollywood studio. Even independent movies were huge undertakings requiring massive budgets (in the millions of dollars) for the rental of expensive film cameras, lighting rigs, cranes and dollies. Even with the introduction of digital video cinematography, spending $100,000 on a RED or Arri camera was the cost of doing business.

Fortunately for many of us, low-budget filmmaker Robert Rodriguez started a trend towards ultra-low-budget filmmaking which lowered the barrier to entry for talented, but undiscovered, filmmakers.

Just last year Rodriguez offered $7,000 grants to five amateur filmmakers to shoot a feature film in two weeks. The film shoots became segments for Rodriguez’s show Rebel Without a Crew, based on his book by the same name, for the upstart streaming media service Go90.

But that was just the start. According to the CultofMac website, Hollywood feature film director  Steven Soderbergh recently shot a feature film with the iPhone X and is talking about doing it again. This was not just a stunt, according to Soderbergh.

“I think this is the future…anybody going to see this movie who has no idea of the backstory to the production will have no idea this was shot on the phone. That’s not part of the conceit.”

Not convinced? Check out this video.

The fact that many of us have, in our pockets, access to this kind of technology should be a wake-up call to anyone who has big dreams and a small wallet. Now get out there and shoot something!

Facebook’s Fraught Future

Facebook’s failed attempt to foil Fake News while fortifying financial fortunes at the expense of friends’ futures finally finds itself facing fearless foes. Okay, I can’t keep that up but I hope you get the idea. After an amazing decade of growth and incredible buy-in from more than 2 billion users, Facebook is finally getting some push-back. Investors and executives who have since left the company are publicly saying what others have wondered for some time: is Facebook too big and too focused on monetizing audience members’ attention for our own good? Here’s what some are saying:

In response to the criticism Facebook announced a change to the algorithm that dictates the contents of your news feed. According to Facebook,

…we’re making a major change to how we build Facebook. I’m changing the goal I give our product teams from focusing on helping you find relevant content to helping you have more meaningful social interactions.

We started making changes in this direction last year, but it will take months for this new focus to make its way through all our products. The first changes you’ll see will be in News Feed, where you can expect to see more from your friends, family and groups.

As we roll this out, you’ll see less public content like posts from businesses, brands, and media. And the public content you see more will be held to the same standard — it should encourage meaningful interactions between people.

While some may criticize this change as too-little, too-late, others may question whether these are mere cosmetic changes simply designed to deflect criticism. But it is fairly clear that several things are going to happen as a result: time spent on Facebook and engagement will both decline, (resulting in lower revenue for Facebook), and media companies that have relied on Facebook to distribute their content far and wide will have to find other ways to reach their audience.

But look on the bright side: that change will provide new opportunities for media-savvy storytellers who know how to reach an audience with compelling content. And that person could be you!

 

 

Celebrity Endorsements

HuffPo recently published data reported by HopperHQ about rates charged by celebrities for social media endorsements. Here’s a list of some of the top dealmakers.

  1. Selena Gomez – 122 million followers – $550,000 per post
  2. Kim Kardashian – 100 million followers – $500,000 per post
  3. Cristiano Ronaldo – 104 million followers – $400,000 per post
  4. Kylie Jenner – 95 million followers – $400,000 per post
  5. Kendall Jenner – 81.7 million followers – $370,000 per post
  6. Khloe Kardashian – 68 million followers – $250,000 per post
  7. Kourtney Kardashian – 57.8 million followers – $250,000 per post
  8. Cara Delevingne – 40.4 million followers – $150,000 per post
  9. Gigi Hadid 34.7 million followers – $120,000 per post
  10. Lebron James – 30.7 million followers – $120,000 per post

As you can see it is largely a numbers game with a couple of notable exceptions, e.g. Kim Kardashian punches above her weight with a cool $500K per post to reach her 100M followers.

Just in case you, or anyone you know, have a plan to become one of these influence marketers, just remember that there are a few million folks in line ahead of you. You should probably have a plan B just in case.

Fake News, Social Media, and Russian Influence

In the days following the 2016 election Mark Zuckerberg said, “The idea that fake news on Facebook, of which it’s a very small amount of the content, influenced the election in any way I think is a pretty crazy idea.” Since then Facebook has uncovered more than $100,000 of ad spending by Russian operatives designed to highlight divisive election issues. In late September Zuckerberg issued an apology saying, “Calling that crazy was dismissive and I regret it.”

It now appears that social media regret is more widespread as well. This past week Twitter admitted to a Congressional panel that it too was targeted by Russian operatives attempting to influence the election.

According to Recode,

Twitter informed congressional investigators of its findings in a series of briefings in Washington, D.C., on Thursday — and the revelations are sure to stoke further speculation on Capitol Hill that Kremlin agents sought to co-opt social media platforms to stir social and political unrest in the U.S.

In a separate report, Recode reported…

…about 20 percent of tweets sampled around the U.S. presidential election qualified as “polarizing and conspiracy content,” including links to “junk news,” WikiLeaks or Russian sources, like Sputnik and RT.

Next on the stand will be Google. Congress wants to know whether its email, advertising, and YouTube services were compromised by Russian operatives attempting to manipulate the outcome of the Presidential election.

In all of these instances it is becoming apparent that the meddling was intended to influence the outcome of the election not by promoting or attacking any one candidate, but by stoking political unrest on a variety of hot-button social issues, including: immigration, gun control, religion, LGBT, and racial issues such as Black Lives Matter.

CNN reported that a Russia-backed account called Blacktivists used Facebook and Twitter to promote racial tension and its Facebook account had more “Likes” than the Black Lives Matter Facebook account.

According to a report published in the Washington Post,

These targeted messages, along with others that have surfaced in recent days, highlight the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and infiltrate U.S. political discourse while also seeking to heighten tensions between groups already wary of one another.

Even if Congress cracks down on reporting of political ads on social media there is little evidence that much will change. After all, these are not political ads by traditional definitions.

There are, however, a couple of take-aways from these reports. First, if you’re consuming news exclusively on social media you are vulnerable to manipulation. And second, hyper-partisanship makes us even more likely to believe propaganda and lies. The first issue is fairly easy to address…the second will take significantly greater effort.

Russia used Facebook to Try to Influence the 2016 Election

New reports are surfacing claiming that Russia was behind an effort to influence the 2016 Presidential election. Facebook itself is releasing information suggesting that it carried approximately $100,000 of advertising that was “connected to about 470 inauthentic accounts and Pages in violation of our policies.” Using fake Facebook accounts, highly-targeted ads pushed traffic to websites designed to promote a narrative that was pro-Trump and/or anti-Clinton.

Zuckerberg had previously claimed that social media manipulations were not responsible for the Trump victory, but these new revelations may reopen that debate. In response, some lawmakers are calling for regulations that would make political ad buys on social media more transparent.

Twitter has also indicated that it will look into Russian meddling that may have targeted their platform.