Ireland's High Court on Friday rejected Facebook's bid to block a regulatory probe that could potentially stop data transfers from the European Union to the United States.

"I refuse all of the reliefs sought by (Facebook Ireland) and dismiss the claims made by it in the proceedings," read a statement from High Court judge David Barniville, dismissing its challenge against the Data Protection Commissioner's decision to hold a probe.

"FBI has not established any basis for impugning the DPC decision or the PDD or the procedures for the inquiry adopted by the DPC," the judgment said.

The case originates from EU concern that US government's surveillance may not respect privacy rights of EU citizens.

Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) had launched an inquiry in August. It had issued a provisional order saying that the main mechanism Facebook uses to transfer EU user data to the United States "cannot in practice be used". Facebook had challenged the inquiry and the Preliminary Draft Decision (PDD).

Facebook had said that the inquiry threatened "devastating" and "irreversible" consequences for its business, which relies on processing user data to serve targeted online ads. The HIgh Court rejected the challenge.

While the decision does not trigger an immediate halt to data flows, Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems, who forced the Irish data regulator to act in a series of legal actions over the past eight years, said he believed the decision made it inevitable.

"After eight years, the DPC is now required to stop Facebook's EU-U.S. data transfers, likely before summer," he said.

A Facebook spokesman said the company looked forward to defending its compliance with EU data rules as the Irish regulator's provisional order "could be damaging not only to Facebook, but also to users and other businesses".

(With inputs from agencies)

Ireland's High Court on Friday rejected Facebook's bid to block a regulatory probe that could potentially stop data transfers from the European Union to the United States.

Ireland's High Court on Friday rejected Facebook's bid to block a regulatory probe that could potentially stop data transfers from the European Union to the United States. "I refuse all of the reliefs sought by (Facebook Ireland) and dismiss the claims made by it in the proceedings," read a statement from High Court judge David Barniville, dismissing its challenge against the Data Protection Commissioner's decision to hold a probe. "FBI has not established any basis for impugning the DPC decision or the PDD or the procedures for the inquiry adopted by the DPC," the judgment said. The case originates from EU concern that US government's surveillance may not respect privacy rights of EU citizens. Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) had launched an inquiry in August. It had issued a provisional order saying that the main mechanism Facebook uses to transfer EU user data to the United States "cannot in practice be used". Facebook had challenged the inquiry and the Preliminary Draft Decision (PDD). Facebook had said that the inquiry threatened "devastating" and "irreversible" consequences for its business, which relies on processing user data to serve targeted online ads. The HIgh Court rejected the challenge. While the decision does not trigger an immediate halt to data flows, Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems, who forced the Irish data regulator to act in a series of legal actions over the past eight years, said he believed the decision made it inevitable. "After eight years, the DPC is now required to stop Facebook's EU-U.S. data transfers, likely before summer," he said. A Facebook spokesman said the company looked forward to defending its compliance with EU data rules as the Irish regulator's provisional order "could be damaging not only to Facebook, but also to users and other businesses". (With inputs from agencies)

Facebook may face prospect of data transfer ban after Irish ruling

Facebook-owned messaging colossus&nbsp;WhatsApp&nbsp;retreated again from its plan to force users to accept new terms which critics said could expand data collection from its two billion users around the world.

It comes after a&nbsp;German regulator on Tuesday slapped a three-month ban on Facebook collecting user data from&nbsp;WhatsApp&nbsp;accounts and referred the case to an EU watchdog, citing concerns about election integrity.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-world-pushes-back-against-new-whatsapp-privacy-policy-384634/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

WhatsApp, which was set to enforce its new data-sharing policy on May 15, following a delay in response to a user outcry -- revealed on its website that it would not immediately cut off users who don't accept the new terms, although it would send reminders to those who don't opt-in.

The update will allow additional sharing of information from&nbsp;WhatsApp&nbsp;with Facebook and its other applications such as Instagram and Messenger, such as contacts and profile data, but not the content of messages which remain encrypted.

The platform had claimed the update was chiefly aimed at merchants who use&nbsp;WhatsApp&nbsp;to chat with customers -- allowing them to share data with Facebook.

But critics feared it could open the door to broader data sharing with Facebook with potential implications for user privacy.

The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information sent the order to the social network, which owns the popular messaging service. Hamburg has jurisdiction because Facebook's German branch is based in the city.&nbsp;

The tech giant informed&nbsp;WhatsApp&nbsp;users earlier this year that they had to consent to a new data-use policy to continue using the service.

The German authority said in an emergency decision that the terms of that agreement were now null and void in Europe's top economy for three months.

It will hand the case over to the European Data Protection Board, an independent EU body that enforces rules throughout the 27-nation bloc. &nbsp;

The head of the German regulator, Johannes Caspar, said past Facebook data protection breaches as well as Germany's general election in September showed the "dangers" of "mass building of user profiles" that could be exploited.

"This ruling is intended to protect the rights and freedoms of the many millions of user across Germany who give their permission to the new use and privacy policy," he said.

"That includes not only the private sphere but also the possibility of using profiles to influence voter choices and manipulate democratic decisions."&nbsp;

Caspar noted that with nearly 60 million users in Germany,&nbsp;WhatsApp&nbsp;was "by far" the country's most popular social media app.

A&nbsp;WhatsApp&nbsp;spokesman said the update would not allow additional passing of user information from the service to Facebook's other applications.

"Your acceptance of the new Terms of Service does not expand&nbsp;WhatsApp's ability to share user data with its parent company Facebook," he said.

WhatsApp&nbsp;said the German order "is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and effect of&nbsp;WhatsApp's update and therefore has no legitimate basis".

The update actually "provides further transparency about how we collect and use data", said the spokesman.

As the Hamburg authority's "claims are wrong, the order will not impact the continued roll-out of the update", he added.

The regulatory action has opened a new front in&nbsp;Germany&nbsp;over Facebook's privacy policies, with its national antitrust regulator waging a legal battle over data practices it says amount to an abuse of market dominance.

Since 2018, online privacy has been subject to a European Union rulebook, called the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Under the GDPR, Ireland leads oversight of Facebook because the company's European headquarters is there.

Facebook-owned messaging colossus WhatsApp retreated again from its plan to force users to accept new terms which critics said could expand data collection from its two billion users around the world.

Facebook-owned messaging colossus WhatsApp retreated again from its plan to force users to accept new terms which critics said could expand data collection from its two billion users around the world. It comes after a German regulator on Tuesday slapped a three-month ban on Facebook collecting user data from WhatsApp accounts and referred the case to an EU watchdog, citing concerns about election integrity. WhatsApp, which was set to enforce its new data-sharing policy on May 15, following a delay in response to a user outcry -- revealed on its website that it would not immediately cut off users who don't accept the new terms, although it would send reminders to those who don't opt-in. The update will allow additional sharing of information from WhatsApp with Facebook and its other applications such as Instagram and Messenger, such as contacts and profile data, but not the content of messages which remain encrypted. The platform had claimed the update was chiefly aimed at merchants who use WhatsApp to chat with customers -- allowing them to share data with Facebook. But critics feared it could open the door to broader data sharing with Facebook with potential implications for user privacy. The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information sent the order to the social network, which owns the popular messaging service. Hamburg has jurisdiction because Facebook's German branch is based in the city. The tech giant informed WhatsApp users earlier this year that they had to consent to a new data-use policy to continue using the service. The German authority said in an emergency decision that the terms of that agreement were now null and void in Europe's top economy for three months. It will hand the case over to the European Data Protection Board, an independent EU body that enforces rules throughout the 27-nation bloc. The head of the German regulator, Johannes Caspar, said past Facebook data protection breaches as well as Germany's general election in September showed the "dangers" of "mass building of user profiles" that could be exploited. "This ruling is intended to protect the rights and freedoms of the many millions of user across Germany who give their permission to the new use and privacy policy," he said. "That includes not only the private sphere but also the possibility of using profiles to influence voter choices and manipulate democratic decisions." Caspar noted that with nearly 60 million users in Germany, WhatsApp was "by far" the country's most popular social media app. A WhatsApp spokesman said the update would not allow additional passing of user information from the service to Facebook's other applications. "Your acceptance of the new Terms of Service does not expand WhatsApp's ability to share user data with its parent company Facebook," he said. WhatsApp said the German order "is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose and effect of WhatsApp's update and therefore has no legitimate basis". The update actually "provides further transparency about how we collect and use data", said the spokesman. As the Hamburg authority's "claims are wrong, the order will not impact the continued roll-out of the update", he added. The regulatory action has opened a new front in Germany over Facebook's privacy policies, with its national antitrust regulator waging a legal battle over data practices it says amount to an abuse of market dominance. Since 2018, online privacy has been subject to a European Union rulebook, called the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Under the GDPR, Ireland leads oversight of Facebook because the company's European headquarters is there.

WhatsApp delays enforcing new privacy terms after Germany halts data sharing

Instagram on Wednesday began letting English-language users enhance profiles to show new gender pronouns they want applied to them in conversation.

The photo-centric social network became the lasted internet service to broaden beyond basic "he" or "she" references to pronouns preferred by those with alternate gender identities.

"Add pronouns to your profile," Instagram said in a tweet.

"The new field is available in a few countries, with plans for more."

Instagram users can opt to have pronoun choices shown publicly, or just to friends at the service.

Pronoun options included "them" and "theirs" along with nonbinary "co," "ze" and others shared at a resource center page at the University of California, Davis, website.

"We are giving people more tools to express themselves on Instagram," the Facebook-owned service said.

"Sharing pronouns has been widely adopted by our community, and with this feature we hope to normalize the adoption further," he added.

Instagram added that it consulted with advocacy groups on pronoun options.

The addition to Instagram profiles was rolled out globally in English, with work being done to expand to other languages, according to Instagram.

(With inputs from agencies)

Instagram on Wednesday began letting English-language users enhance profiles to show new gender pronouns they want applied to them in conversation. The photo-centric social network became the lasted internet service to broaden beyond basic "he" or "she" references to pronouns preferred by those with alternate gender identities.

Instagram on Wednesday began letting English-language users enhance profiles to show new gender pronouns they want applied to them in conversation. The photo-centric social network became the lasted internet service to broaden beyond basic "he" or "she" references to pronouns preferred by those with alternate gender identities. "Add pronouns to your profile," Instagram said in a tweet. "The new field is available in a few countries, with plans for more." Instagram users can opt to have pronoun choices shown publicly, or just to friends at the service. Pronoun options included "them" and "theirs" along with nonbinary "co," "ze" and others shared at a resource center page at the University of California, Davis, website. "We are giving people more tools to express themselves on Instagram," the Facebook-owned service said. "Sharing pronouns has been widely adopted by our community, and with this feature we hope to normalize the adoption further," he added. Instagram added that it consulted with advocacy groups on pronoun options. The addition to Instagram profiles was rolled out globally in English, with work being done to expand to other languages, according to Instagram. (With inputs from agencies)

Instagram to let users add pronouns in profiles, in nod to alternate gender identities

With accounts deleted on Twitter and content blocked on Instagram, Palestinian social media users say they have been censored from showing the reality of the unrest in Jerusalem.

The eastern part of the holy city has been hit with the worst violence since 2017, with clashes centred around the Al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, since Friday.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-israel-hamas-exchange-rocket-fire-384382/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The tensions have since spiralled into a full-scale military confrontation, in which Islamist groups have fired rockets and Israel has launched air raids on targets in the coastal enclave of Gaza.

The tensions, which the United Nations has warned is heading towards "a full-scale war", were triggered by the looming evictions of Palestinian families to make way for Israeli settlers in the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah.

On social media, Palestinians have widely shared photos and videos of Israeli forces facing off with residents, in what Amnesty International has denounced as an "illegal and abusive use of force" against "largely peaceful" protesters.

Social media remains an important tool for Palestinians, many of whom believe traditional media coverage does not sufficiently capture the reality of the crisis.

Instagram and&nbsp;Twitter&nbsp;had&nbsp;blamed technical errors for deleting posts mentioning the possible eviction of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, but data rights groups fear "discriminatory" algorithms are at work and want greater transparency.

Palestinians living in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood claimed by Jewish settlers have taken to social media to protest as they face eviction, but some found their posts, photos or videos removed or their accounts blocked starting last week.

It came as a long-running legal case over evictions from homes in Sheikh Jarrah has fuelled tensions in Jerusalem where hundreds of Palestinians clashed with Israeli police on Monday.

Sada Social, a platform designed to protect content shared by Palestinians online, recorded 200 restrictions in the past week on matters related to Sheikh Jarrah and East Jerusalem.

"This includes the closure of accounts on Twitter or Instagram or the blocking of features on Instagram, such as streaming live videos, or restricting access to content related to Sheikh Jarrah, Gaza or Jerusalem," said director Eyad Rifai.

A spokesperson for Twitter said it was reversing action against accounts that were targeted "in error by an automated spam filter".

"Defending and respecting the voices of the people who use our service is one of our core values at Twitter," said the statement.

"We use a combination of technology and human review to enforce the Twitter Rules across the service. In this case, our automated systems took enforcement action on a number of accounts in error".

Instagram meanwhile blamed a "technical bug which impacted millions of people's stories, highlights and archives globally" including Palestinians who saw their content "disappear".

Likewise, the Arabic hashtag Al-Aqsa was "mistakenly restricted" in an action which has since been "lifted", said a spokesperson for Facebook, which owns the platform.

"We sincerely apologise for both issues, and to all those, including our Palestinian community, who felt like their ability to have an open discussion around important matters was affected in any way".

But Palestinian internet users still report restrictions, said Marwa Fatafta, Middle East and North Africa manager at digital activist group Access Now.&nbsp;

"On Friday evening, during the Israeli assault on worshippers at Al-Aqsa Mosque, Facebook restricted the 'Al-Aqsa' hashtag and the streaming of live videos on Instagram was disrupted or blocked for many users," Fatafta said.

She added that Twitter also suspended dozens of accounts, including that of Palestinian journalist Mariam Barghouti, "as she covered a violent Israeli crackdown on protesters near Ramallah" in the occupied West Bank.

"These arbitrary 'technical errors' tend to happen in peak times when activists are sharing information and documenting Israeli aggression," said Fatafta, who called for transparency and an investigation.

Barghouti's Twitter account, with over 50,000 followers, has since been restored.

Rifai, from Sada Social, accused the Israeli government of having forged partnerships with major social networks to "crack down on Palestinian digital content", but said this is the first time that restrictions have become widespread.

"It is a very serious situation which prevents us, as Palestinians, from enjoying our digital rights like other users of these sites around the world," he told said.

Rifai said that some deleted accounts have been restored on Twitter, but that the process is "still ongoing".

In a statement released on Sunday, Instagram said that the same restrictions had affected content related to protests in Colombia and the rights of indigenous communities in Canada and the United States.&nbsp;

The social network said it has solved the problem but Hind Khoudary, a Palestinian journalist with more than 18,000 followers on Instagram, said she is "still censored".

"I have lost stories. And my stories on Instagram cannot be seen," she told said.

(With inputs from agencies)

With accounts deleted on Twitter and content blocked on Instagram, Palestinian social media users say they have been censored from showing the reality of the unrest in Jerusalem.

With accounts deleted on Twitter and content blocked on Instagram, Palestinian social media users say they have been censored from showing the reality of the unrest in Jerusalem. The eastern part of the holy city has been hit with the worst violence since 2017, with clashes centred around the Al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, since Friday. The tensions have since spiralled into a full-scale military confrontation, in which Islamist groups have fired rockets and Israel has launched air raids on targets in the coastal enclave of Gaza. The tensions, which the United Nations has warned is heading towards "a full-scale war", were triggered by the looming evictions of Palestinian families to make way for Israeli settlers in the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah. On social media, Palestinians have widely shared photos and videos of Israeli forces facing off with residents, in what Amnesty International has denounced as an "illegal and abusive use of force" against "largely peaceful" protesters. Social media remains an important tool for Palestinians, many of whom believe traditional media coverage does not sufficiently capture the reality of the crisis. Instagram and Twitter had blamed technical errors for deleting posts mentioning the possible eviction of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, but data rights groups fear "discriminatory" algorithms are at work and want greater transparency. Palestinians living in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood claimed by Jewish settlers have taken to social media to protest as they face eviction, but some found their posts, photos or videos removed or their accounts blocked starting last week. It came as a long-running legal case over evictions from homes in Sheikh Jarrah has fuelled tensions in Jerusalem where hundreds of Palestinians clashed with Israeli police on Monday. Sada Social, a platform designed to protect content shared by Palestinians online, recorded 200 restrictions in the past week on matters related to Sheikh Jarrah and East Jerusalem. "This includes the closure of accounts on Twitter or Instagram or the blocking of features on Instagram, such as streaming live videos, or restricting access to content related to Sheikh Jarrah, Gaza or Jerusalem," said director Eyad Rifai. A spokesperson for Twitter said it was reversing action against accounts that were targeted "in error by an automated spam filter". "Defending and respecting the voices of the people who use our service is one of our core values at Twitter," said the statement. "We use a combination of technology and human review to enforce the Twitter Rules across the service. In this case, our automated systems took enforcement action on a number of accounts in error". Instagram meanwhile blamed a "technical bug which impacted millions of people's stories, highlights and archives globally" including Palestinians who saw their content "disappear". Likewise, the Arabic hashtag Al-Aqsa was "mistakenly restricted" in an action which has since been "lifted", said a spokesperson for Facebook, which owns the platform. "We sincerely apologise for both issues, and to all those, including our Palestinian community, who felt like their ability to have an open discussion around important matters was affected in any way". But Palestinian internet users still report restrictions, said Marwa Fatafta, Middle East and North Africa manager at digital activist group Access Now. "On Friday evening, during the Israeli assault on worshippers at Al-Aqsa Mosque, Facebook restricted the 'Al-Aqsa' hashtag and the streaming of live videos on Instagram was disrupted or blocked for many users," Fatafta said. She added that Twitter also suspended dozens of accounts, including that of Palestinian journalist Mariam Barghouti, "as she covered a violent Israeli crackdown on protesters near Ramallah" in the occupied West Bank. "These arbitrary 'technical errors' tend to happen in peak times when activists are sharing information and documenting Israeli aggression," said Fatafta, who called for transparency and an investigation. Barghouti's Twitter account, with over 50,000 followers, has since been restored. Rifai, from Sada Social, accused the Israeli government of having forged partnerships with major social networks to "crack down on Palestinian digital content", but said this is the first time that restrictions have become widespread. "It is a very serious situation which prevents us, as Palestinians, from enjoying our digital rights like other users of these sites around the world," he told said. Rifai said that some deleted accounts have been restored on Twitter, but that the process is "still ongoing". In a statement released on Sunday, Instagram said that the same restrictions had affected content related to protests in Colombia and the rights of indigenous communities in Canada and the United States. The social network said it has solved the problem but Hind Khoudary, a Palestinian journalist with more than 18,000 followers on Instagram, said she is "still censored". "I have lost stories. And my stories on Instagram cannot be seen," she told said. (With inputs from agencies)

Palestinians denounce 'censorship' of content by Instagram and Twitter

Properly understanding and responding to customer feedback on social media platforms is crucial for brands, and it may have just gotten a little easier thanks to new research by computer science researchers at the University of Central Florida who have developed a sarcasm detector.

Social media has become a dominant form of communication for individuals, and for companies looking to market and sell their products and services.

Properly understanding and responding to customer feedback on Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms are critical for success, but it is incredibly labour-intensive.

A UCF team developed a technique that accurately detects sarcasm in a social media text.The team`s findings were recently published in the journal Entropy.

The team effectively taught the computer model to find patterns that often indicate sarcasm and combined that with teaching the program to correctly pick out cue words in sequences that were more likely to indicate sarcasm. They taught the model to do this by feeding it large data sets and then checked its accuracy.

"The presence of sarcasm in the text is the main hindrance in the performance of sentiment analysis," says Assistant Professor of engineering Ivan Garibay.

"Sarcasm is not always easy to identify in conversation, so you can imagine it's pretty challenging for a computer program to do it and do it well. We developed an interpretable deep learning model using multi-head self-attention and gated recurrent units. The multi-head self-attention module aids in identifying crucial sarcastic cue-words from the input, and the recurrent units learn long-range dependencies between these cue-words to better classify the input text," he added.

The team, which includes computer science doctoral student Ramya Akula, began working on this problem under a DARPA grant that supports the organization`s Computational Simulation of Online Social Behavior program.

"Sarcasm has been a major hurdle to increasing the accuracy of sentiment analysis, especially on social media, since sarcasm relies heavily on vocal tones, facial expressions, and gestures that cannot be represented in text," says Brian Kettler, a program manager in DARPA`s Information Innovation Office (I2O).

"Recognising sarcasm in textual online communication is no easy task as none of these cues is readily available."

This is one of the challenges Garibay`s Complex Adaptive Systems Lab (CASL) is studying. CASL is an interdisciplinary research group dedicated to the study of complex phenomena such as the global economy, the global information environment, innovation ecosystems, sustainability, and social and cultural dynamics and evolution.

CASL scientists study these problems using data science, network science, complexity science, cognitive science, machine learning, deep learning, social sciences, team cognition, among other approaches.

"In face-to-face conversation, sarcasm can be identified effortlessly using facial expressions, gestures, and tone of the speaker," Akula says.

"Detecting sarcasm in textual communication is not a trivial task as none of these cues is readily available. Especially with the explosion of internet usage, sarcasm detection in online communications from social networking platforms is much more challenging."

(With inputs from agencies)

Properly understanding and responding to customer feedback on social media platforms is crucial for brands, and it may have just gotten a little easier thanks to new research by computer science researchers at the University of Central Florida who have developed a sarcasm detector.

Properly understanding and responding to customer feedback on social media platforms is crucial for brands, and it may have just gotten a little easier thanks to new research by computer science researchers at the University of Central Florida who have developed a sarcasm detector. Social media has become a dominant form of communication for individuals, and for companies looking to market and sell their products and services. Properly understanding and responding to customer feedback on Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms are critical for success, but it is incredibly labour-intensive. A UCF team developed a technique that accurately detects sarcasm in a social media text.The team`s findings were recently published in the journal Entropy. The team effectively taught the computer model to find patterns that often indicate sarcasm and combined that with teaching the program to correctly pick out cue words in sequences that were more likely to indicate sarcasm. They taught the model to do this by feeding it large data sets and then checked its accuracy. "The presence of sarcasm in the text is the main hindrance in the performance of sentiment analysis," says Assistant Professor of engineering Ivan Garibay. "Sarcasm is not always easy to identify in conversation, so you can imagine it's pretty challenging for a computer program to do it and do it well. We developed an interpretable deep learning model using multi-head self-attention and gated recurrent units. The multi-head self-attention module aids in identifying crucial sarcastic cue-words from the input, and the recurrent units learn long-range dependencies between these cue-words to better classify the input text," he added. The team, which includes computer science doctoral student Ramya Akula, began working on this problem under a DARPA grant that supports the organization`s Computational Simulation of Online Social Behavior program. "Sarcasm has been a major hurdle to increasing the accuracy of sentiment analysis, especially on social media, since sarcasm relies heavily on vocal tones, facial expressions, and gestures that cannot be represented in text," says Brian Kettler, a program manager in DARPA`s Information Innovation Office (I2O). "Recognising sarcasm in textual online communication is no easy task as none of these cues is readily available." This is one of the challenges Garibay`s Complex Adaptive Systems Lab (CASL) is studying. CASL is an interdisciplinary research group dedicated to the study of complex phenomena such as the global economy, the global information environment, innovation ecosystems, sustainability, and social and cultural dynamics and evolution. CASL scientists study these problems using data science, network science, complexity science, cognitive science, machine learning, deep learning, social sciences, team cognition, among other approaches. "In face-to-face conversation, sarcasm can be identified effortlessly using facial expressions, gestures, and tone of the speaker," Akula says. "Detecting sarcasm in textual communication is not a trivial task as none of these cues is readily available. Especially with the explosion of internet usage, sarcasm detection in online communications from social networking platforms is much more challenging." (With inputs from agencies)

Researchers develop artificial intelligence that can detect sarcasm in social media

Donald Trump encouraged the Capitol rioters and so earned his Facebook ban, but the social media giant's rules are in "shambles" and need fixing, the co-chair of the network's oversight panel said Sunday.

The panel agreed just days ago that Facebook was right to oust the ex-president for his comments regarding the deadly January 6 rampage, though it sidestepped an overall decision on whether he will ever be allowed back.

"He issued these statements which were just egging on -- with perfunctory asking for peace -- but mostly he was just egging them on to continue," oversight body co-chair Michael McConnell told Fox News Sunday.

Trump was suspended from Facebook and Instagram after posting a video during the attack by his fired-up supporters challenging his election loss, in which he told them: "We love you, you're very special."

"He (Trump) bears responsibility for his situation. He put himself in this bed and he can sleep in it," McConnell added.

However, the panel gave the company six months to justify why his ban should be permanent -- leaving a grenade in Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's lap on the issue of free speech, and spotlighting weaknesses in the platform's plan for self-regulation.

"We gave them (Facebook) a certain amount of time to get... their house in order," McConnell said. "They needed some time because their rules are shambles... They are unclear, they are internally inconsistent."

McConnell, a constitutional law professor at Stanford, noted that the social media giant was not violating Trump's free speech rights.

- 'Facebook is not a government' -

"The simple willing answer is private companies are not bound by the First Amendment," he said referring to the US constitution. "He's a customer. Facebook is not a government, and he is not a citizen of Facebook."

In its ruling, the oversight board -- envisioned by Zuckerberg as the equivalent of a "supreme court" for thorny content decisions -- made additional recommendations on dealing with potentially harmful content from world leaders.

The panel "called on Facebook to address widespread confusion about how decisions relating to influential users are made" and said, "considerations of newsworthiness should not take priority when urgent action is needed to prevent significant harm."

Twitter has permanently suspended Trump after the Capitol riot, saying there was a risk he would further incite violence, due to his multiple tweets disputing Joe Biden's presidential election victory.

Twitter on Thursday confirmed that it had pulled the plug on several Trump-linked accounts trying to skirt the ban.

Social media had been key to Trump's political success, letting him fire off comments without having to explain or back claims.

At a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, US lawmakers unleashed criticism at the leaders of the top social networks and promised new regulations.

Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey, and Google's Sundar Pichai faced questions from lawmakers who blamed their platforms for political extremism, drug abuse, teen suicides and more.

Zuckerberg reiterated his belief that private companies should not be the judges of truth when it comes to what people say.

Donald Trump encouraged the Capitol rioters and so earned his Facebook ban, but the social media giant's rules are in "shambles" and need fixing, the co-chair of the network's oversight panel said Sunday.

Donald Trump encouraged the Capitol rioters and so earned his Facebook ban, but the social media giant's rules are in "shambles" and need fixing, the co-chair of the network's oversight panel said Sunday. The panel agreed just days ago that Facebook was right to oust the ex-president for his comments regarding the deadly January 6 rampage, though it sidestepped an overall decision on whether he will ever be allowed back. "He issued these statements which were just egging on -- with perfunctory asking for peace -- but mostly he was just egging them on to continue," oversight body co-chair Michael McConnell told Fox News Sunday. Trump was suspended from Facebook and Instagram after posting a video during the attack by his fired-up supporters challenging his election loss, in which he told them: "We love you, you're very special." "He (Trump) bears responsibility for his situation. He put himself in this bed and he can sleep in it," McConnell added. However, the panel gave the company six months to justify why his ban should be permanent -- leaving a grenade in Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's lap on the issue of free speech, and spotlighting weaknesses in the platform's plan for self-regulation. "We gave them (Facebook) a certain amount of time to get... their house in order," McConnell said. "They needed some time because their rules are shambles... They are unclear, they are internally inconsistent." McConnell, a constitutional law professor at Stanford, noted that the social media giant was not violating Trump's free speech rights. - 'Facebook is not a government' - "The simple willing answer is private companies are not bound by the First Amendment," he said referring to the US constitution. "He's a customer. Facebook is not a government, and he is not a citizen of Facebook." In its ruling, the oversight board -- envisioned by Zuckerberg as the equivalent of a "supreme court" for thorny content decisions -- made additional recommendations on dealing with potentially harmful content from world leaders. The panel "called on Facebook to address widespread confusion about how decisions relating to influential users are made" and said, "considerations of newsworthiness should not take priority when urgent action is needed to prevent significant harm." Twitter has permanently suspended Trump after the Capitol riot, saying there was a risk he would further incite violence, due to his multiple tweets disputing Joe Biden's presidential election victory. Twitter on Thursday confirmed that it had pulled the plug on several Trump-linked accounts trying to skirt the ban. Social media had been key to Trump's political success, letting him fire off comments without having to explain or back claims. At a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, US lawmakers unleashed criticism at the leaders of the top social networks and promised new regulations. Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey, and Google's Sundar Pichai faced questions from lawmakers who blamed their platforms for political extremism, drug abuse, teen suicides and more. Zuckerberg reiterated his belief that private companies should not be the judges of truth when it comes to what people say.

Donald Trump 'egged on' US Capitol rioters: Facebook oversight panel co-chair

Michael McConnell, the co-chair of the Facebook Oversight Board, criticized the social media platform in the wake of its indefinite ban on former President Donald Trump, saying Facebook's rules are in "shambles."

McConnell did note that the board also have made recommendations to the company to increase transparency.

"They needed some time because their rules are shambles, they are not transparent, they are unclear, they are internally inconsistent," McConnell said.

He added, "we gave a series of recommendations about how to make their rules clearer and more consistent."

The Oversight Board upheld Facebook's current ban on Trump for his posts on Jan. 6, with some caveats.

"Trump is subject to the same rules on Facebook as everyone else, and the Oversight Board held that this was, in fact, a violation and thus Facebook was justified in taking them down," McConnell said.&nbsp;

"What we did say, though, was that they were not justified in taking him down indefinitely, that they did not provide any reasons for that, that is not a provision in their rules. That was wrong."

Meanwhile, The ex-President has launched his own communications platform called From the Desk of Donald J Trump. The platform which is a subsection of Trump’s official website was launched on May 5. The announcement comes months after Trump was kicked out of all major social platforms including Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and more.

(With inputs from agencies)

Michael McConnell, the co-chair of the Facebook Oversight Board, criticized the social media platform in the wake of its indefinite ban on former President Donald Trump, saying Facebook's rules are in "shambles.

Michael McConnell, the co-chair of the Facebook Oversight Board, criticized the social media platform in the wake of its indefinite ban on former President Donald Trump, saying Facebook's rules are in "shambles." McConnell did note that the board also have made recommendations to the company to increase transparency. "They needed some time because their rules are shambles, they are not transparent, they are unclear, they are internally inconsistent," McConnell said. He added, "we gave a series of recommendations about how to make their rules clearer and more consistent." The Oversight Board upheld Facebook's current ban on Trump for his posts on Jan. 6, with some caveats. "Trump is subject to the same rules on Facebook as everyone else, and the Oversight Board held that this was, in fact, a violation and thus Facebook was justified in taking them down," McConnell said. "What we did say, though, was that they were not justified in taking him down indefinitely, that they did not provide any reasons for that, that is not a provision in their rules. That was wrong." Meanwhile, The ex-President has launched his own communications platform called From the Desk of Donald J Trump. The platform which is a subsection of Trump’s official website was launched on May 5. The announcement comes months after Trump was kicked out of all major social platforms including Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and more. (With inputs from agencies)

Facebook rules are internally inconsistent, says oversight board leader

Facebook’s Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld the social network’s temporary suspension of Donald Trump but declined to decide when, or whether, that ban should be lifted. The decision dashed the former president’s hopes for a swift reinstatement by a body charged with reviewing the platform’s content moderation practices. But it also sent a message that the scope of the board’s power is limited and that the ultimate responsibility for these questions still lies with Mark Zuckerberg and company.

The London-based body of about 20 outside experts — former political leaders, human rights activists and journalists — called for the company to re-examine the penalty within six months and decide whether to reinstate him, impose a finite suspension or ban him for good. The board was also careful to note that Mr. Trump’s indefinite suspension has no basis in Facebook’s stated policies. “In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. The board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.”

Assuming Facebook follows its ruling — as it pledged it would when it established the charter for the semi-independent board in 2019 — it’s a setback for Mr. Trump and his allies, who relied heavily on social media to rally support, raise money and spread their polarizing messages. It ensures that he will remain without one of the world’s loudest megaphones in his continuing campaign to undermine the relevance of American democracy by casting Joe Biden’s electoral victory as fraudulent.

It is also, in a sense, a setback for Facebook: Declining to permanently rule on Mr. Trump’s fate on the platform sends the ball back to Mr. Zuckerberg’s court. That’s exactly where he seemed not to want it.

As the decision ricochets across the political world, there will be ample debate as to whether the board made the right call. Upholding Mr. Trump’s suspension sets a precedent for applying the same rules to world leaders as Facebook does to ordinary users, at least in cases of imminent harm — or perhaps even tougher ones, as some communications scholars had suggested. Overturning it, even conditionally, would have militated for a hands-off approach to newsworthy political speech, which seemed to be Mr. Zuckerberg’s own inclination before the winds of power shifted.

While these arguments tend to break mostly along partisan lines, they sometimes come with awkward political role reversals on the deeper questions concerning corporate power over speech. For instance, after Facebook and Twitter banned Mr. Trump in January, some on the left framed the deplatforming as the inviolable prerogative of companies exercising their First Amendment rights, while Trump supporters argued that the companies had a public duty to let him speak. With Wednesday’s announcement, the right may turn with renewed vigor to government intervention.

Then there are the debates about the board’s legitimacy and what legitimacy it confers on Facebook. Does its qualified rebuke of Facebook’s indefinite suspension, which it called “arbitrary,” prove the board’s independence? Or does its refusal to decide Mr. Trump’s future on the platform reinforce its limitations?

What each of these scenarios leaves out, and the entire project of the Oversight Board obscures, is that the problems with Mr. Trump’s presence on Facebook — the lies, the propaganda, the incitements — are not just Trump problems. They’re Facebook problems (and to be fair, Twitter problems).

Manipulation, misinformation, fear and loathing are endemic to today’s social media platforms, whose engagement-driven algorithms are built to spread whatever messages tap into users’ viscera and provoke a quick “like” or an angry comment. Yet the platforms have delegated much of the work of moderating this content to overwhelmed contractors and fallible artificial intelligence software. The tide of hogwash and bile may recede when a super-spewer such as Mr. Trump is deplatformed. But the dynamics that enabled him endure.

It is those underlying dynamics, and not solely Mr. Trump’s right to use the platform, that any truly independent oversight of Facebook would address. Last month, the U.S. Senate began deliberating over how social media algorithms and design choices mold political discourse. While its hearing was inconclusive at best, it at least served notice that they’re a topic of potential regulatory interest.

Facebook endowed the Oversight Board with a measure of autonomy. It funded the board with an irrevocable trust, promised operational independence and pledged to treat its content decisions (though not its policy recommendations) as binding. Yet it did not empower the board to watch over its products or systems — only its rules and how it applies them.

That’s why some communication scholars have dismissed the board as a red herring, substituting a simulacrum of due process in certain high-profile cases for substantive reform. While the term “oversight board” suggests accountability for the institution it oversees, this board’s function is essentially the opposite: to shift accountability for Facebook’s decisions away from the company itself. The board’s power to adjudicate individual content decisions may be real, but it’s a power that Mr. Zuckerberg never wanted in the first place.

That’s not to say it’s a total sham. Wednesday’s decision aside, putting weighty decisions about online speech in the hands of an accomplished group of outsiders would seem more likely to lead to thoughtful and consistent rulings than leaving them to Facebook’s employees and executives. Both today and in previous decisions, the board has revealed itself to be nothing if not thorough, carefully documenting its rationale and the implications of its decisions for similar cases. But its impotence in holding Facebook to account, more than the ruling on Mr. Trump’s suspension, is what makes Wednesday’s announcement unsatisfying.

Among the many public comments that poured in when the board announced it would take the case, a submission from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University best articulated the crux of the matter. Warning that the board’s decision on Mr. Trump would serve as a “fig leaf” for Facebook’s own failures, the institute’s scholars implored the company to delay issuing a ruling until Facebook commissioned an independent study into its own role in the events leading up to the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

There had been at least a sliver of hope that the board might take such a stand. One of its members, Alan Rusbridger, a British journalist, had called publicly in March for the board to examine Facebook’s algorithms, though he acknowledged it might not do so right away. “We’re already a bit frustrated by just saying ‘take it down’ or ‘leave it up,’” Mr. Rusbridger said, according to The Guardian.

Evelyn Douek, a lecturer at Harvard Law School who has chronicled the board’s evolution, told me she’s seen evidence in its early decisions that “the board is chafing against the very limited remit that Facebook has given it so far.” She would like it to go farther in pushing for transparency. For instance, she said, it could call on Facebook to reveal the Trump ban’s impact on an internal metric that it calls “violence and incitement trends.”

The board did take a small step in that direction on Wednesday. Among its policy recommendations, it called for Facebook to undertake a “comprehensive review of its potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and the exacerbated tensions that culminated in the violence in the United States on January 6.” This review, the board said, “should be an open reflection on the design and policy choices that Facebook has made that may allow its platform to be abused.”

But the board’s policy recommendations, unlike its ruling on the case itself, are nonbinding. And by suggesting that Facebook conduct the review itself, it overlooked the company’s long history of generously grading its own homework.

What Facebook needs to solve its Trump problem is not a binding decision from an appeals court but aggressive investigation into how it shapes the flow of political information. That must include insight into both the workings of its algorithms and moderation processes. It may be just one company, but its unilateral power over the public square became untenable long ago. The long-term solution must involve either stronger checks on its power or reducing its scale.

Perhaps the board will eventually channel its frustration into more substantive action, using the leverage it enjoys as a highly public emblem of Facebook’s bid to self-regulate. But on Wednesday, with the world watching, it opted to accept its limitations rather than challenge them. And that says more about its relevance at this moment than anything in the 12,000-word decision it issued.

Facebook’s Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld the social network’s temporary suspension of Donald Trump but declined to decide when, or whether, that ban should be lifted.

Facebook’s Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld the social network’s temporary suspension of Donald Trump but declined to decide when, or whether, that ban should be lifted. The decision dashed the former president’s hopes for a swift reinstatement by a body charged with reviewing the platform’s content moderation practices. But it also sent a message that the scope of the board’s power is limited and that the ultimate responsibility for these questions still lies with Mark Zuckerberg and company. The London-based body of about 20 outside experts — former political leaders, human rights activists and journalists — called for the company to re-examine the penalty within six months and decide whether to reinstate him, impose a finite suspension or ban him for good. The board was also careful to note that Mr. Trump’s indefinite suspension has no basis in Facebook’s stated policies. “In applying a vague, standardless penalty and then referring this case to the board to resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities. The board declines Facebook’s request and insists that Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.” Assuming Facebook follows its ruling — as it pledged it would when it established the charter for the semi-independent board in 2019 — it’s a setback for Mr. Trump and his allies, who relied heavily on social media to rally support, raise money and spread their polarizing messages. It ensures that he will remain without one of the world’s loudest megaphones in his continuing campaign to undermine the relevance of American democracy by casting Joe Biden’s electoral victory as fraudulent. It is also, in a sense, a setback for Facebook: Declining to permanently rule on Mr. Trump’s fate on the platform sends the ball back to Mr. Zuckerberg’s court. That’s exactly where he seemed not to want it. As the decision ricochets across the political world, there will be ample debate as to whether the board made the right call. Upholding Mr. Trump’s suspension sets a precedent for applying the same rules to world leaders as Facebook does to ordinary users, at least in cases of imminent harm — or perhaps even tougher ones, as some communications scholars had suggested. Overturning it, even conditionally, would have militated for a hands-off approach to newsworthy political speech, which seemed to be Mr. Zuckerberg’s own inclination before the winds of power shifted. While these arguments tend to break mostly along partisan lines, they sometimes come with awkward political role reversals on the deeper questions concerning corporate power over speech. For instance, after Facebook and Twitter banned Mr. Trump in January, some on the left framed the deplatforming as the inviolable prerogative of companies exercising their First Amendment rights, while Trump supporters argued that the companies had a public duty to let him speak. With Wednesday’s announcement, the right may turn with renewed vigor to government intervention. Then there are the debates about the board’s legitimacy and what legitimacy it confers on Facebook. Does its qualified rebuke of Facebook’s indefinite suspension, which it called “arbitrary,” prove the board’s independence? Or does its refusal to decide Mr. Trump’s future on the platform reinforce its limitations? What each of these scenarios leaves out, and the entire project of the Oversight Board obscures, is that the problems with Mr. Trump’s presence on Facebook — the lies, the propaganda, the incitements — are not just Trump problems. They’re Facebook problems (and to be fair, Twitter problems). Manipulation, misinformation, fear and loathing are endemic to today’s social media platforms, whose engagement-driven algorithms are built to spread whatever messages tap into users’ viscera and provoke a quick “like” or an angry comment. Yet the platforms have delegated much of the work of moderating this content to overwhelmed contractors and fallible artificial intelligence software. The tide of hogwash and bile may recede when a super-spewer such as Mr. Trump is deplatformed. But the dynamics that enabled him endure. It is those underlying dynamics, and not solely Mr. Trump’s right to use the platform, that any truly independent oversight of Facebook would address. Last month, the U.S. Senate began deliberating over how social media algorithms and design choices mold political discourse. While its hearing was inconclusive at best, it at least served notice that they’re a topic of potential regulatory interest. Facebook endowed the Oversight Board with a measure of autonomy. It funded the board with an irrevocable trust, promised operational independence and pledged to treat its content decisions (though not its policy recommendations) as binding. Yet it did not empower the board to watch over its products or systems — only its rules and how it applies them. That’s why some communication scholars have dismissed the board as a red herring, substituting a simulacrum of due process in certain high-profile cases for substantive reform. While the term “oversight board” suggests accountability for the institution it oversees, this board’s function is essentially the opposite: to shift accountability for Facebook’s decisions away from the company itself. The board’s power to adjudicate individual content decisions may be real, but it’s a power that Mr. Zuckerberg never wanted in the first place. That’s not to say it’s a total sham. Wednesday’s decision aside, putting weighty decisions about online speech in the hands of an accomplished group of outsiders would seem more likely to lead to thoughtful and consistent rulings than leaving them to Facebook’s employees and executives. Both today and in previous decisions, the board has revealed itself to be nothing if not thorough, carefully documenting its rationale and the implications of its decisions for similar cases. But its impotence in holding Facebook to account, more than the ruling on Mr. Trump’s suspension, is what makes Wednesday’s announcement unsatisfying. Among the many public comments that poured in when the board announced it would take the case, a submission from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University best articulated the crux of the matter. Warning that the board’s decision on Mr. Trump would serve as a “fig leaf” for Facebook’s own failures, the institute’s scholars implored the company to delay issuing a ruling until Facebook commissioned an independent study into its own role in the events leading up to the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6. There had been at least a sliver of hope that the board might take such a stand. One of its members, Alan Rusbridger, a British journalist, had called publicly in March for the board to examine Facebook’s algorithms, though he acknowledged it might not do so right away. “We’re already a bit frustrated by just saying ‘take it down’ or ‘leave it up,’” Mr. Rusbridger said, according to The Guardian. Evelyn Douek, a lecturer at Harvard Law School who has chronicled the board’s evolution, told me she’s seen evidence in its early decisions that “the board is chafing against the very limited remit that Facebook has given it so far.” She would like it to go farther in pushing for transparency. For instance, she said, it could call on Facebook to reveal the Trump ban’s impact on an internal metric that it calls “violence and incitement trends.” The board did take a small step in that direction on Wednesday. Among its policy recommendations, it called for Facebook to undertake a “comprehensive review of its potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and the exacerbated tensions that culminated in the violence in the United States on January 6.” This review, the board said, “should be an open reflection on the design and policy choices that Facebook has made that may allow its platform to be abused.” But the board’s policy recommendations, unlike its ruling on the case itself, are nonbinding. And by suggesting that Facebook conduct the review itself, it overlooked the company’s long history of generously grading its own homework. What Facebook needs to solve its Trump problem is not a binding decision from an appeals court but aggressive investigation into how it shapes the flow of political information. That must include insight into both the workings of its algorithms and moderation processes. It may be just one company, but its unilateral power over the public square became untenable long ago. The long-term solution must involve either stronger checks on its power or reducing its scale. Perhaps the board will eventually channel its frustration into more substantive action, using the leverage it enjoys as a highly public emblem of Facebook’s bid to self-regulate. But on Wednesday, with the world watching, it opted to accept its limitations rather than challenge them. And that says more about its relevance at this moment than anything in the 12,000-word decision it issued.

Trump is a problem Facebook’s oversight board was built not to solve

Facebook said on Thursday that it had taken down network of hundreds of fake accounts and pages that targetted people in Ukraine. These accounts and pages were linked to indviduals who were previously sanctioned by the US for interfering in US elections.

Facebook said that this network was managing a deceptive campaign across multiple social media platforms posing as independent news outlets. Facebook said it started its own probe after FBI tipped them off.

Facebook attributed the activity to individuals and entities sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department including politician Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russian lawmaker who was blacklisted by the U.S. government in September over accusations he tried to interfere in the 2020 U.S. election won by President Joe Biden. Facebook said it removed Derkach's accounts in October 2020.

Reacting to the investigation, Derkach said big firms were building a "dictatorship in the name of liberal values" and that he was preparing to submit draft legislation to Ukraine's parliament to regulate global social media companies.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/twitter-suspends-several-accounts-that-tried-promoting-donald-trumps-content-383358">Twitter suspends several accounts that tried promoting Donald Trump's content</a>

"I proceed from the fact that no one has the right to restrict basic human rights and freedoms. Neither Facebook nor the state," he said in a statement sent to Reuters on Friday.

Facebook also attributed the network to political consultants associated with Ukrainian politicians Oleh Kulinich and Volodymyr Groysman, Ukraine's former prime minister. Kulinich did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Groysman could not immediately be reached for comment.

Facebook said that as well as promoting these politicians, the network also pushed positive material about actors across the political spectrum. This was likely as a paid service.&nbsp;

"You can really think of these operators as would-be influence mercenaries, renting out inauthentic online support in Ukrainian political circles," Ben Nimmo, Facebook's global influence operations threat intelligence lead, said on a call with reporters.

Facebook's investigation team said Ukraine, which has been among the top sources of "coordinated inauthentic behavior" that it removes from the site, is home to an increasing number of influence operations selling services.

Facebook said it removed 363 pages. These pages were followed by 2.37 million accounts. In addition to these pages, 477 accounts have been removed.

The network also spent about $496,000 in Facebook and Instagram ads, Facebook said.

(With inputs from agencies)

Facebook said on Thursday that it had taken down network of hundreds of fake accounts and pages that targetted people in Ukraine. These accounts and pages were linked to indviduals who were previously sanctioned by the US for interfering in US elections.

Facebook said on Thursday that it had taken down network of hundreds of fake accounts and pages that targetted people in Ukraine. These accounts and pages were linked to indviduals who were previously sanctioned by the US for interfering in US elections. Facebook said that this network was managing a deceptive campaign across multiple social media platforms posing as independent news outlets. Facebook said it started its own probe after FBI tipped them off. Facebook attributed the activity to individuals and entities sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department including politician Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russian lawmaker who was blacklisted by the U.S. government in September over accusations he tried to interfere in the 2020 U.S. election won by President Joe Biden. Facebook said it removed Derkach's accounts in October 2020. Reacting to the investigation, Derkach said big firms were building a "dictatorship in the name of liberal values" and that he was preparing to submit draft legislation to Ukraine's parliament to regulate global social media companies. Also Read | Twitter suspends several accounts that tried promoting Donald Trump's content "I proceed from the fact that no one has the right to restrict basic human rights and freedoms. Neither Facebook nor the state," he said in a statement sent to Reuters on Friday. Facebook also attributed the network to political consultants associated with Ukrainian politicians Oleh Kulinich and Volodymyr Groysman, Ukraine's former prime minister. Kulinich did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Groysman could not immediately be reached for comment. Facebook said that as well as promoting these politicians, the network also pushed positive material about actors across the political spectrum. This was likely as a paid service. "You can really think of these operators as would-be influence mercenaries, renting out inauthentic online support in Ukrainian political circles," Ben Nimmo, Facebook's global influence operations threat intelligence lead, said on a call with reporters. Facebook's investigation team said Ukraine, which has been among the top sources of "coordinated inauthentic behavior" that it removes from the site, is home to an increasing number of influence operations selling services. Facebook said it removed 363 pages. These pages were followed by 2.37 million accounts. In addition to these pages, 477 accounts have been removed. The network also spent about $496,000 in Facebook and Instagram ads, Facebook said. (With inputs from agencies)

Facebook removes 'influence-for hire' network that targetted Ukrainian people

As Facebook decided the fate of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump’s</a> account, current US President, Joe Biden urged social media platforms to “stop amplifying untrustworthy content”.

“The president’s view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19, vaccinations and elections,” White House spokeswoman, Jen Psaki told reporters.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/facebook-oversight-board-upholds-ban-on-donald-trump-383012" hreflang="en">Facebook oversight board upholds ban on Donald Trump</a>

Statement from White House came after Facebook decided to continue the ban on former president &nbsp;Donald Trump’s social media account after he was accused of using social media for motivating his supporters to carry out Capitol riots in January.

While the White House refused to directly address the topic of Trump’s ban, Biden has indirectly talked about Trump’s repeated trials of accusing Biden of voter fraud on social media.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/from-the-desk-of-donald-trump-launches-his-own-social-media-space-382830" hreflang="en">'From the Desk of...': Donald Trump launches his own social media space</a>

The statement came a day after Trump launched his own version of social media platform where he can post messages, which can then be shared on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/twitter">Twitter</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/facebook">Facebook</a>. Local media has dubbed this new platform as "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump". The posts published on this platform will be open to liking and sharing. The platform has, reportedly, been built by Campaign Nucleus, the digital services company created by Trump's former campaign manager Brad Parscale.

Trump will be using this space once again to amplify his claims about the US election 2020 were manipulated and allege his opposition of voter fraud — without providing any proof.

“The fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!," Trump said.

As Facebook decided the fate of Donald Trump’s account, current US President, Joe Biden urged social media platforms to “stop amplifying untrustworthy content”. “The president’s view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19, vaccinations and elections,” White House spokeswoman, Jen Psaki told reporters.

As Facebook decided the fate of Donald Trump’s account, current US President, Joe Biden urged social media platforms to “stop amplifying untrustworthy content”. “The president’s view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19, vaccinations and elections,” White House spokeswoman, Jen Psaki told reporters. Also read | Facebook oversight board upholds ban on Donald Trump Statement from White House came after Facebook decided to continue the ban on former president Donald Trump’s social media account after he was accused of using social media for motivating his supporters to carry out Capitol riots in January. While the White House refused to directly address the topic of Trump’s ban, Biden has indirectly talked about Trump’s repeated trials of accusing Biden of voter fraud on social media. Also read | 'From the Desk of...': Donald Trump launches his own social media space The statement came a day after Trump launched his own version of social media platform where he can post messages, which can then be shared on Twitter and Facebook. Local media has dubbed this new platform as "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump". The posts published on this platform will be open to liking and sharing. The platform has, reportedly, been built by Campaign Nucleus, the digital services company created by Trump's former campaign manager Brad Parscale. Trump will be using this space once again to amplify his claims about the US election 2020 were manipulated and allege his opposition of voter fraud — without providing any proof. “The fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!," Trump said.

Social media platforms should not amplify 'untrustworthy' content: Biden

After getting banned from the majority of the popular social media platforms, former US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a> has decided to launch his own space where he can freely criticise everyone he dislikes.

He has decided to launch a space on his own website where he can post messages, which can then be shared on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/twitter">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/facebook">Facebook</a>.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/father-of-vaccine-immigration-and-2024-presidential-run-donald-trump-attacks-biden-381492" hreflang="en">'Father of vaccine', immigration and 2024 presidential run: Donald Trump attacks Biden</a>

Putting a stop to speculations, Trump’s campaign has clarified that this new, personal platform will not be a collection of his posts from Twitter and Facebook. "We'll have additional information coming on that front in the very near future," said Jaison Miller, Trump’s senior advisor.

Trump’s announcement has come a few hours before <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-to-decide-donald-trumps-fate-on-its-platforms-on-may-5-382596">Facebook’s oversight board</a> is due to announce its decision on whether or not Trump will be allowed to post again on the platform ever.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trumps-secret-rules-for-drone-strikes-outside-war-zones-are-disclosed-382340" hreflang="en">Trump’s secret rules for drone strikes outside war zones are disclosed</a>

Local media has, meanwhile, dubbed this new platform as "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump". The posts published on this platform will be open to liking and sharing. The platform has, reportedly, been built by Campaign Nucleus, the digital services company created by Trump's former campaign manager Brad Parscale.

Experts believe Trump will use this platform to, once again, amplify his claims about US election 2020 were manipulated and allege his opposition of voter fraud — without providing any proof.

Meanwhile, Twitter has clarified that posts from this new platform will be allowed to be posted on Twitter as long as the material does not break any of the pre-set rules. However, the platform has also clarified that the former reality TV show personality will never be allowed to return to the platform, even if he runs for the presidential elections again.

YouTube has said it will restore Trump’s account only when the platform decides the risk of violence from his channel has decreased.

After getting banned from the majority of the popular social media platforms, former US President Donald Trump has decided to launch his own space where he can freely criticise everyone he dislikes.

After getting banned from the majority of the popular social media platforms, former US President Donald Trump has decided to launch his own space where he can freely criticise everyone he dislikes. He has decided to launch a space on his own website where he can post messages, which can then be shared on Twitter and Facebook. Also read | 'Father of vaccine', immigration and 2024 presidential run: Donald Trump attacks Biden Putting a stop to speculations, Trump’s campaign has clarified that this new, personal platform will not be a collection of his posts from Twitter and Facebook. "We'll have additional information coming on that front in the very near future," said Jaison Miller, Trump’s senior advisor. Trump’s announcement has come a few hours before Facebook’s oversight board is due to announce its decision on whether or not Trump will be allowed to post again on the platform ever. Also read | Trump’s secret rules for drone strikes outside war zones are disclosed Local media has, meanwhile, dubbed this new platform as "From the Desk of Donald J. Trump". The posts published on this platform will be open to liking and sharing. The platform has, reportedly, been built by Campaign Nucleus, the digital services company created by Trump's former campaign manager Brad Parscale. Experts believe Trump will use this platform to, once again, amplify his claims about US election 2020 were manipulated and allege his opposition of voter fraud — without providing any proof. Meanwhile, Twitter has clarified that posts from this new platform will be allowed to be posted on Twitter as long as the material does not break any of the pre-set rules. However, the platform has also clarified that the former reality TV show personality will never be allowed to return to the platform, even if he runs for the presidential elections again. YouTube has said it will restore Trump’s account only when the platform decides the risk of violence from his channel has decreased.

'From the Desk of...': Donald Trump launches his own social media space

Facebook's independent oversight board on Wednesday upheld&nbsp;the platform's ban of former US President Donald Trump in a case that sets a precedent for how social media handles harmful content from world leaders.

Facebook indefinitely blocked Trump's access to his Facebook and Instagram accounts over concerns of further violent unrest following the January&nbsp;6 storming of the US&nbsp;Capitol by supporters of the former president.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-launches-his-own-social-media-space-on-his-website-382917/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

At the time of the suspension, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said in a post that "the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great."

The company later referred the case to its recently established board, which includes academics, lawyers and rights activists, to decide whether to uphold the ban or restore Trump.

"Both of those decisions are no-win decisions for Facebook," said Kate Klonick, an assistant law professor at St. John's University who embedded at Facebook to follow the board`s creation. "So, offloading those to a third party, the Oversight Board, is a win for them no matter what."

The binding verdict marks a major decision for the board, which rules on a small slice of challenging content decisions and which Facebook created as an independent body as a response to criticism over how it handles problematic material. Facebook has also asked the board to provide recommendations on how it should handle political leaders` accounts.

Tech platforms have grappled in recent years with how to police world leaders and politicians that violate their guidelines.

Facebook has come under fire both from those who think it should abandon its hands-off approach to political speech and those who saw the Trump ban as a worrying act of censorship.

Trump was permanently banned from Twitter Inc, where he has more than 88 million followers.

Trump, who has been sending out short, emailed press releases, continued to promote election misinformation in one on Monday, saying "the

Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!"

On Tuesday, he launched a new web page to share messages that readers can then re-post to their Facebook or Twitter accounts. A senior adviser has said Trump also has plans to launch his own social media platform.

Facebook has said Trump, who has 35 million Facebook followers, would be subject to the same policies as ordinary users after the end of his presidency. This means that if Trump returned to the platform, his posts would now be eligible for fact-checking. Following a widening of the board`s scope in April, Facebook users would also be able to appeal the former president`s posts to the board.

Trump`s suspension was the first time Facebook had blocked a current president, prime minister or head of state. Facebook`s oversight board said it received more than 9,000 comments from the public on the Trump ban, the most it has had for a case so far.

Several academics and civil rights groups have publicly shared their letters urging the board to block Trump permanently, while Republican lawmakers and some free expression advocates have criticized the decision.

"I would hope that they`re also thinking about the precedent-setting of this," said Katie Harbath, a former Facebook public policy director and a fellow at the Washington D.C.-based Bipartisan Policy Center. "What does that look like internationally, what does that look like in the long term?" she added.

The Oversight Board, an idea that Zuckerberg first publicly floated in 2018, currently has 20 members, including former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt and several law experts and rights advocates. Decisions need only majority approval.

The board, which some have dubbed Facebook`s "Supreme Court," has been hailed as a novel experiment by some researchers but blasted by other critics who have been skeptical over its independence or view it as a PR stunt to deflect attention from the company`s more systemic problems.

It is funded through a $130 million trust created by Facebook and has so far made rulings on a small number of cases from hate speech to nudity.

(With inputs from agencies)

Facebook's independent oversight board on Wednesday upheld the platform's ban of former US President Donald Trump in a case that sets a precedent for how social media handles harmful content from world leaders.

Facebook's independent oversight board on Wednesday upheld the platform's ban of former US President Donald Trump in a case that sets a precedent for how social media handles harmful content from world leaders. Facebook indefinitely blocked Trump's access to his Facebook and Instagram accounts over concerns of further violent unrest following the January 6 storming of the US Capitol by supporters of the former president. At the time of the suspension, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said in a post that "the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great." The company later referred the case to its recently established board, which includes academics, lawyers and rights activists, to decide whether to uphold the ban or restore Trump. "Both of those decisions are no-win decisions for Facebook," said Kate Klonick, an assistant law professor at St. John's University who embedded at Facebook to follow the board`s creation. "So, offloading those to a third party, the Oversight Board, is a win for them no matter what." The binding verdict marks a major decision for the board, which rules on a small slice of challenging content decisions and which Facebook created as an independent body as a response to criticism over how it handles problematic material. Facebook has also asked the board to provide recommendations on how it should handle political leaders` accounts. Tech platforms have grappled in recent years with how to police world leaders and politicians that violate their guidelines. Facebook has come under fire both from those who think it should abandon its hands-off approach to political speech and those who saw the Trump ban as a worrying act of censorship. Trump was permanently banned from Twitter Inc, where he has more than 88 million followers. Trump, who has been sending out short, emailed press releases, continued to promote election misinformation in one on Monday, saying "the Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!" On Tuesday, he launched a new web page to share messages that readers can then re-post to their Facebook or Twitter accounts. A senior adviser has said Trump also has plans to launch his own social media platform. Facebook has said Trump, who has 35 million Facebook followers, would be subject to the same policies as ordinary users after the end of his presidency. This means that if Trump returned to the platform, his posts would now be eligible for fact-checking. Following a widening of the board`s scope in April, Facebook users would also be able to appeal the former president`s posts to the board. Trump`s suspension was the first time Facebook had blocked a current president, prime minister or head of state. Facebook`s oversight board said it received more than 9,000 comments from the public on the Trump ban, the most it has had for a case so far. Several academics and civil rights groups have publicly shared their letters urging the board to block Trump permanently, while Republican lawmakers and some free expression advocates have criticized the decision. "I would hope that they`re also thinking about the precedent-setting of this," said Katie Harbath, a former Facebook public policy director and a fellow at the Washington D.C.-based Bipartisan Policy Center. "What does that look like internationally, what does that look like in the long term?" she added. The Oversight Board, an idea that Zuckerberg first publicly floated in 2018, currently has 20 members, including former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt and several law experts and rights advocates. Decisions need only majority approval. The board, which some have dubbed Facebook`s "Supreme Court," has been hailed as a novel experiment by some researchers but blasted by other critics who have been skeptical over its independence or view it as a PR stunt to deflect attention from the company`s more systemic problems. It is funded through a $130 million trust created by Facebook and has so far made rulings on a small number of cases from hate speech to nudity. (With inputs from agencies)

Facebook oversight board upholds ban on Donald Trump

Australian television and newspaper firm Seven West Media Ltd signed multi-year content deals with Facebook Inc and Google as tough new media laws enabled the industry to secure new revenue sources and adapt to the internet age.

The top-rating free-to-air broadcaster and publisher of Perth city's main metro daily said on Monday it would supply content for the Alphabet Inc unit's News Showcase platform for five years and to a similar Facebook product for three. Terms of the deals were not disclosed.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-australia-wants-google-to-pay-for-news-google-threatens-to-turn-off-search-358676/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The arrangements mean the US&nbsp;"Big Tech" platforms are now committed to paying two of&nbsp;Australia's three largest traditional news outlets for content, marking an about turn just two months after they had vowed to quit the country over laws forcing them to pay for the links that drive traffic to their websites.

"These partnerships have been made possible by the introduction of the Media Bargaining Code," said Seven CEO James Warburton in a statement, referring to the law which gives the government power to intervene if domestic media companies can't reach agreement with a large internet provider.

"They underpin our sustainability and enable us to continue to build our digital platform."

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, which owns about two-thirds of&nbsp;Australian newspapers, signed global deals with the platforms in the past two months.

Nine Entertainment Co Holdings Ltd, which competes with Seven in free-to-air and publishes the Sydney Morning Herald and&nbsp;Australian Financial Review newspapers, has said it signed a Google deal but is yet to finalise arrangements with Facebook.

Many smaller&nbsp;Australian media outlets, including the state-owned&nbsp;Australian Broadcasting Corp, have signed deals with Google or said they are open to doing deals with Facebook, which blocked all third-party content in&nbsp;Australia&nbsp;for a week in February to protest the laws.

Separately, Google said it passed the milestone of having 100&nbsp;Australian news titles contracted to supply content for News Showcase with a deal with regional publisher Times News Group, owner of seven regional mastheads in the country's south.

(With inputs from agencies)

Australian television and newspaper firm Seven West Media Ltd signed multi-year content deals with Facebook Inc and Google as tough new media laws enabled the industry to secure new revenue sources and adapt to the internet age.

Australian television and newspaper firm Seven West Media Ltd signed multi-year content deals with Facebook Inc and Google as tough new media laws enabled the industry to secure new revenue sources and adapt to the internet age. The top-rating free-to-air broadcaster and publisher of Perth city's main metro daily said on Monday it would supply content for the Alphabet Inc unit's News Showcase platform for five years and to a similar Facebook product for three. Terms of the deals were not disclosed. The arrangements mean the US "Big Tech" platforms are now committed to paying two of Australia's three largest traditional news outlets for content, marking an about turn just two months after they had vowed to quit the country over laws forcing them to pay for the links that drive traffic to their websites. "These partnerships have been made possible by the introduction of the Media Bargaining Code," said Seven CEO James Warburton in a statement, referring to the law which gives the government power to intervene if domestic media companies can't reach agreement with a large internet provider. "They underpin our sustainability and enable us to continue to build our digital platform." Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, which owns about two-thirds of Australian newspapers, signed global deals with the platforms in the past two months. Nine Entertainment Co Holdings Ltd, which competes with Seven in free-to-air and publishes the Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Financial Review newspapers, has said it signed a Google deal but is yet to finalise arrangements with Facebook. Many smaller Australian media outlets, including the state-owned Australian Broadcasting Corp, have signed deals with Google or said they are open to doing deals with Facebook, which blocked all third-party content in Australia for a week in February to protest the laws. Separately, Google said it passed the milestone of having 100 Australian news titles contracted to supply content for News Showcase with a deal with regional publisher Times News Group, owner of seven regional mastheads in the country's south. (With inputs from agencies)

After news law feud, Australia's Seven West Media signs Google, Facebook deals

A week of&nbsp;blockbuster&nbsp;earnings&nbsp;reports&nbsp;from&nbsp;Big&nbsp;Tech&nbsp;culminated Thursday with&nbsp;Amazon&nbsp;crushing forecasts of how much money it would rake in from pandemic-revved online shopping and growing reliance on internet-hosted services.

The e-commerce colossus is among the internet giants whose businesses thrived as precautions against <a href="https://www.wionews.com/search?q=Coronavirus">COVID-19</a> led people around the world to go online for work, school, shopping and socialising.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/facebook-allows-advertisers-to-reach-children-interested-in-smoking-gambling-research-381052">Facebook allows advertisers to reach children interested in smoking, gambling: Research</a>

Amazon&nbsp;reported that its profit in the recently ended quarter tripled as online sales boomed.

Revenue soared to $108.5 billion, an increase of 44 per cent from the same period a year earlier, as the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/search?q=Coronavirus">pandemic</a> fueled a trend of shopping online instead of in real-world stores.

Profit in the quarter was $8.1 billion, compared with $2.5 billion in the first three months of last year.

The&nbsp;Amazon&nbsp;Web Services unit that hosts services and data in the internet cloud saw revenue in the quarter climb to $13.5 billion.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/amazon-to-raise-pay-for-500000-workers-after-failed-unionisation-drive-381459">Amazon to raise pay for 500,000 workers after failed unionisation drive</a>

People and businesses turning to the internet have boosted the cloud computing market where&nbsp;Amazon&nbsp;competes with Microsoft and Google.

Apple and Facebook this week reported soaring quarterly profits that essentially doubled over the previous year at $23.6 billion and $9.5 billion respectively.

Apple was lifted by strong gains in sales of iPhones and assorted products and services, while Facebook saw robust increases in digital advertising, reflecting people's rising internet usage during the ongoing pandemic.

The results followed what one analyst called a "monster" quarter for Google and its parent firm Alphabet, which along with Facebook dominates online advertising. They also come after a robust&nbsp;report&nbsp;from Microsoft, a powerhouse in cloud computing and video games.

The latest round of results is likely to prompt more scrutiny over the growing dominance of&nbsp;Big&nbsp;Tech, particularly with their services seemingly ready-made for locked-down consumers.

"The large&nbsp;tech&nbsp;companies are in the right place at the right time," said Darrell West, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center for Technology Innovation.

"Covid has accelerated digital transformation in education, health care, remote work and e-commerce, and that has boosted the profitability of those firms."

The surging influence of&nbsp;Big&nbsp;Tech&nbsp;has led to calls for increased regulation, higher taxes and stronger antitrust enforcement to foster more competition and counter economic inequality.

Covid 'shock'&nbsp;

Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology &amp; Innovation Foundation, a think tank that often reflects views of the sector, said the&nbsp;tech&nbsp;giants are benefitting from the massive digital shift that has accelerated during Covid-19.

He maintained that corporations have long reaped such profits, it is just that now they are internet titans.

"I've hardly been to the grocery store and I haven't been on a plane in a long time," he said. "But I'm using more social media and streaming services. When you have a&nbsp;big&nbsp;shock to the system, it leads to some sectors doing poorly and others doing well."

Countering 'techlash'&nbsp;

Still, the massive firms are facing a growing "techlash" in Congress and elsewhere as their power and influence grow.

Apple this week said it would boost its US investment plan to $430 billion over the next five years, aiming to create some 20,000 new jobs.&nbsp;Amazon&nbsp;said it would increase wages for some 500,000 US workers after it staved off a unionization drive at one warehouse.

"The companies are making more money but putting at least some of that back into the US economy, which could mitigate the negative impact," Atkinson said.

Facebook reported its user ranks increased despite persistent criticism over its efforts to protect user privacy and stem misinformation.

The number of people using the leading social network monthly climbed 10 per cent to 2.85 billion, according to the Silicon Valley giant. And monthly usage of the "family" of Facebook apps including Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger was pegged at 3.45 billion.

On Tuesday, Alphabet said profit in the first quarter leapt to $17.9 billion from $6.8 billion in the same period a year ago, led by gains in advertising and cloud computing services.

"Google had an absolute monster quarter," said Patrick Moorhead at Moor Insights &amp; Strategies.

Apple, meanwhile, said Wednesday that revenue was the best ever for its fiscal second quarter, up 54 per cent to $89.6 billion.

Apple reported gains in sales of iPhones, iPads, Mac computers, wearables and accessories, as well as its array of services from digital payments to music.

A week of blockbuster earnings reports from Big Tech culminated Thursday with Amazon crushing forecasts of how much money it would rake in from pandemic-revved online shopping and growing reliance on internet-hosted services.

A week of blockbuster earnings reports from Big Tech culminated Thursday with Amazon crushing forecasts of how much money it would rake in from pandemic-revved online shopping and growing reliance on internet-hosted services. The e-commerce colossus is among the internet giants whose businesses thrived as precautions against COVID-19 led people around the world to go online for work, school, shopping and socialising. Also read | Facebook allows advertisers to reach children interested in smoking, gambling: Research Amazon reported that its profit in the recently ended quarter tripled as online sales boomed. Revenue soared to $108.5 billion, an increase of 44 per cent from the same period a year earlier, as the pandemic fueled a trend of shopping online instead of in real-world stores. Profit in the quarter was $8.1 billion, compared with $2.5 billion in the first three months of last year. The Amazon Web Services unit that hosts services and data in the internet cloud saw revenue in the quarter climb to $13.5 billion. Also read | Amazon to raise pay for 500,000 workers after failed unionisation drive People and businesses turning to the internet have boosted the cloud computing market where Amazon competes with Microsoft and Google. Apple and Facebook this week reported soaring quarterly profits that essentially doubled over the previous year at $23.6 billion and $9.5 billion respectively. Apple was lifted by strong gains in sales of iPhones and assorted products and services, while Facebook saw robust increases in digital advertising, reflecting people's rising internet usage during the ongoing pandemic. The results followed what one analyst called a "monster" quarter for Google and its parent firm Alphabet, which along with Facebook dominates online advertising. They also come after a robust report from Microsoft, a powerhouse in cloud computing and video games. The latest round of results is likely to prompt more scrutiny over the growing dominance of Big Tech, particularly with their services seemingly ready-made for locked-down consumers. "The large tech companies are in the right place at the right time," said Darrell West, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center for Technology Innovation. "Covid has accelerated digital transformation in education, health care, remote work and e-commerce, and that has boosted the profitability of those firms." The surging influence of Big Tech has led to calls for increased regulation, higher taxes and stronger antitrust enforcement to foster more competition and counter economic inequality. Covid 'shock' Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a think tank that often reflects views of the sector, said the tech giants are benefitting from the massive digital shift that has accelerated during Covid-19. He maintained that corporations have long reaped such profits, it is just that now they are internet titans. "I've hardly been to the grocery store and I haven't been on a plane in a long time," he said. "But I'm using more social media and streaming services. When you have a big shock to the system, it leads to some sectors doing poorly and others doing well." Countering 'techlash' Still, the massive firms are facing a growing "techlash" in Congress and elsewhere as their power and influence grow. Apple this week said it would boost its US investment plan to $430 billion over the next five years, aiming to create some 20,000 new jobs. Amazon said it would increase wages for some 500,000 US workers after it staved off a unionization drive at one warehouse. "The companies are making more money but putting at least some of that back into the US economy, which could mitigate the negative impact," Atkinson said. Facebook reported its user ranks increased despite persistent criticism over its efforts to protect user privacy and stem misinformation. The number of people using the leading social network monthly climbed 10 per cent to 2.85 billion, according to the Silicon Valley giant. And monthly usage of the "family" of Facebook apps including Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger was pegged at 3.45 billion. On Tuesday, Alphabet said profit in the first quarter leapt to $17.9 billion from $6.8 billion in the same period a year ago, led by gains in advertising and cloud computing services. "Google had an absolute monster quarter," said Patrick Moorhead at Moor Insights & Strategies. Apple, meanwhile, said Wednesday that revenue was the best ever for its fiscal second quarter, up 54 per cent to $89.6 billion. Apple reported gains in sales of iPhones, iPads, Mac computers, wearables and accessories, as well as its array of services from digital payments to music.

Amazon caps blockbuster Big Tech earnings reports, with profits tripling in first quarter

Facebook removed Australian member of parliament Craig Kelly's page for repeatedly peddling pandemic misinformation, the social media giant said Monday.

Kelly previously had posts blocked on the platform and was forced to quit the governing Liberal Party, amid controversial statements on vaccine safety, lockdowns, and unproven Covid treatments.

Facebook said it removed his popular page permanently after "repeated violations" of its policies.

"We don't allow anyone, including elected officials, to share misinformation about Covid-19 that could lead to imminent physical harm or Covid-19 vaccines that have been debunked by public health experts," a spokesperson said in a statement.

Kelly's Facebook account -- in which he also frequently played down climate change -- drew around six million video views and five million interactions in 2020, according to data tool CrowdTangle.

Kelly told public broadcaster ABC the tech giant's decision amounted to "censorship".

"The idea that they are some purveyors of all truth is just absolutely outrageous," he said.

Before being taken down, Kelly's page bore warnings about potential Covid-19 misinformation. Several posts had also been removed.

In February, Kelly quit the conservative government after being rebuked by Prime Minister Scott Morrison over his public statements and after a failure to sack an aide facing multiple allegations of inappropriate touching.

Kelly is currently an independent member of parliament.

(With inputs from agencies)

Facebook removed Australian member of parliament Craig Kelly's page for repeatedly peddling pandemic misinformation, the social media giant said Monday. Kelly previously had posts blocked on the platform and was forced to quit the governing Liberal Party, amid controversial statements on vaccine safety, lockdowns, and unproven Covid treatments.

Facebook removed Australian member of parliament Craig Kelly's page for repeatedly peddling pandemic misinformation, the social media giant said Monday. Kelly previously had posts blocked on the platform and was forced to quit the governing Liberal Party, amid controversial statements on vaccine safety, lockdowns, and unproven Covid treatments. Facebook said it removed his popular page permanently after "repeated violations" of its policies. "We don't allow anyone, including elected officials, to share misinformation about Covid-19 that could lead to imminent physical harm or Covid-19 vaccines that have been debunked by public health experts," a spokesperson said in a statement. Kelly's Facebook account -- in which he also frequently played down climate change -- drew around six million video views and five million interactions in 2020, according to data tool CrowdTangle. Kelly told public broadcaster ABC the tech giant's decision amounted to "censorship". "The idea that they are some purveyors of all truth is just absolutely outrageous," he said. Before being taken down, Kelly's page bore warnings about potential Covid-19 misinformation. Several posts had also been removed. In February, Kelly quit the conservative government after being rebuked by Prime Minister Scott Morrison over his public statements and after a failure to sack an aide facing multiple allegations of inappropriate touching. Kelly is currently an independent member of parliament. (With inputs from agencies)

Facebook blocks Australian MP for repeatedly peddling pandemic misinformation

Facebook Inc on Thursday said it will begin testing ads on its TikTok clone Instagram Reels in India, Brazil, Germany and Australia, as the social media giant aims to make money from its short-form video feature.

The company is seeking to capitalize on its popularity in India, a fast-growing social media market, while rival TikTok has been banned from the country since last year. Facebook has said it plans to test other features in India, such as letting content creators share Reels videos on their Facebook accounts.

The introduction of ads is an "indication of how strong the momentum is for Reels," said Carolyn Everson, vice president of global business group at Facebook, in an interview. Everson declined to share usage metrics for Reels.

Facebook also announced Thursday it will let advertisers select categories of video content they want to place ads on, such as videos about children and parenting, animals and pets or fitness and workouts.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/instagram-rolls-out-feature-to-tackle-hate-speech-abuse-378965">Instagram rolls out feature to tackle hate speech, abuse</a>

The effort is Facebook's biggest move yet to let brands advertise alongside content subjects. Advertisers typically use Facebook to target certain users by their interests.

"This is a big deal for marketers," Everson said.

Facebook added it will roll out sticker ads for Facebook Stories in the coming weeks. Brands can create stickers that creators will place in their Stories, and influencers will earn a cut of any sales made through the sticker ads.

The feature is part of Facebook's push to court content creators who are increasingly making money directly from fans and followers through platforms such as audio chat app Clubhouse and membership site Patreon.

Facebook Inc on Thursday said it will begin testing ads on its TikTok clone Instagram Reels in India, Brazil, Germany and Australia, as the social media giant aims to make money from its short-form video feature.

Facebook Inc on Thursday said it will begin testing ads on its TikTok clone Instagram Reels in India, Brazil, Germany and Australia, as the social media giant aims to make money from its short-form video feature. The company is seeking to capitalize on its popularity in India, a fast-growing social media market, while rival TikTok has been banned from the country since last year. Facebook has said it plans to test other features in India, such as letting content creators share Reels videos on their Facebook accounts. The introduction of ads is an "indication of how strong the momentum is for Reels," said Carolyn Everson, vice president of global business group at Facebook, in an interview. Everson declined to share usage metrics for Reels. Facebook also announced Thursday it will let advertisers select categories of video content they want to place ads on, such as videos about children and parenting, animals and pets or fitness and workouts. Also Read | Instagram rolls out feature to tackle hate speech, abuse The effort is Facebook's biggest move yet to let brands advertise alongside content subjects. Advertisers typically use Facebook to target certain users by their interests. "This is a big deal for marketers," Everson said. Facebook added it will roll out sticker ads for Facebook Stories in the coming weeks. Brands can create stickers that creators will place in their Stories, and influencers will earn a cut of any sales made through the sticker ads. The feature is part of Facebook's push to court content creators who are increasingly making money directly from fans and followers through platforms such as audio chat app Clubhouse and membership site Patreon.

Facebook begins testing ads in Instagram Reels

Facebook on Monday said it is adding podcasts and "live audio rooms" in a push to get people talking and take on the fast-growing audio-based app Clubhouse.

Facebook's incursion into the audio market comes as the sudden explosion of interest in Clubhouse, an audio app where billionaires and celebrities including Tesla CEO Elon Musk have popped in to chat, could be waning.

Downloads of the Clubhouse app, which is only available on Apple's iOS devices, suffered an estimated 70 per cent&nbsp;decline in March from February when it hit a high.

Facebook has seen a steady rise in users opting for voice, from audio calls at the social network to leaving spoken messages using WhatsApp of Messenger.

Zuckerberg said the world's largest social media network planned in the coming months to launch features including short-form audio clips called "Soundbites" and ways to create sound effects or improve audio quality.&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;said in a blog post&nbsp;it would begin to test live audio rooms, which would launch by the summer.

Zuckerberg said&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;was looking to "treat audio as a first-class medium in the way that we would photos or video" in an interview on Discord with Casey Newton, editor of newsletter Platformer.

The rapid growth of the year-old app Clubhouse has demonstrated the potential of audio chat services.&nbsp;

The app, which is not yet available on Android, faces competition from multiple companies working on Clubhouse clones.

Twitter Inc is testing its live audio feature Spaces, along with new features from Discord, Microsoft-owned LinkedIn, Slack and Spotify Technology.

Reddit also unveiled a preview of its "Reddit Talks" product to moderators on Monday.

Analytics firm Sensor Tower estimated Clubhouse had a 72 per cent&nbsp;decline in growth from about 9.6 million February installs to about 2.4 million in March.

Facebook, which has long been criticized for its handling of problematic content across its products, will face the challenges of moderating live and recorded audio content.

Facebook&nbsp;said its live audio rooms would be available on its Messenger product and in its main app. It said it would test the rooms with public figures as well as in Groups - a product the company has vigorously promoted as providing places for people with common interests but which have also been used to spread misinformation and organize extremist activity.

As part of the announcements, Zuckerberg also said&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;is working with Spotify on "Project Boombox" to share and listen to music on its platform.

Facebook&nbsp;said users would be able to send donations, or tips, to creators in live audio rooms through "Stars". After launch, it will offer other types of monetization like single-purchase access or subscription for rooms. It also announced an audio creator fund for Soundbites.

The company is working to attract more creators who are accustomed to receiving tips and other direct payments from fans.

More than 170 million people are connected to Facebook pages centered on podcasts, and some 35 million users are members of podcast fan groups, but listening to one required leaving the social network.

Facebook also planned to begin testing Live Audio Rooms, expected the feature to be available to all users by the middle of this year.

To make its audio offerings sustainable for the long term, Facebook is building in ways for people creating content to make money.

(With input from agencies)

Facebook on Monday said it is adding podcasts and "live audio rooms" in a push to get people talking and take on the fast-growing audio-based app Clubhouse. Facebook's incursion into the audio market comes as the sudden explosion of interest in Clubhouse, an audio app where billionaires and celebrities including Tesla CEO Elon Musk have popped in to chat, could be waning.

Facebook on Monday said it is adding podcasts and "live audio rooms" in a push to get people talking and take on the fast-growing audio-based app Clubhouse. Facebook's incursion into the audio market comes as the sudden explosion of interest in Clubhouse, an audio app where billionaires and celebrities including Tesla CEO Elon Musk have popped in to chat, could be waning. Downloads of the Clubhouse app, which is only available on Apple's iOS devices, suffered an estimated 70 per cent decline in March from February when it hit a high. Facebook has seen a steady rise in users opting for voice, from audio calls at the social network to leaving spoken messages using WhatsApp of Messenger. Zuckerberg said the world's largest social media network planned in the coming months to launch features including short-form audio clips called "Soundbites" and ways to create sound effects or improve audio quality. Facebook said in a blog post it would begin to test live audio rooms, which would launch by the summer. Zuckerberg said Facebook was looking to "treat audio as a first-class medium in the way that we would photos or video" in an interview on Discord with Casey Newton, editor of newsletter Platformer. The rapid growth of the year-old app Clubhouse has demonstrated the potential of audio chat services. The app, which is not yet available on Android, faces competition from multiple companies working on Clubhouse clones. Twitter Inc is testing its live audio feature Spaces, along with new features from Discord, Microsoft-owned LinkedIn, Slack and Spotify Technology. Reddit also unveiled a preview of its "Reddit Talks" product to moderators on Monday. Analytics firm Sensor Tower estimated Clubhouse had a 72 per cent decline in growth from about 9.6 million February installs to about 2.4 million in March. Facebook, which has long been criticized for its handling of problematic content across its products, will face the challenges of moderating live and recorded audio content. Facebook said its live audio rooms would be available on its Messenger product and in its main app. It said it would test the rooms with public figures as well as in Groups - a product the company has vigorously promoted as providing places for people with common interests but which have also been used to spread misinformation and organize extremist activity. As part of the announcements, Zuckerberg also said Facebook is working with Spotify on "Project Boombox" to share and listen to music on its platform. Facebook said users would be able to send donations, or tips, to creators in live audio rooms through "Stars". After launch, it will offer other types of monetization like single-purchase access or subscription for rooms. It also announced an audio creator fund for Soundbites. The company is working to attract more creators who are accustomed to receiving tips and other direct payments from fans. More than 170 million people are connected to Facebook pages centered on podcasts, and some 35 million users are members of podcast fan groups, but listening to one required leaving the social network. Facebook also planned to begin testing Live Audio Rooms, expected the feature to be available to all users by the middle of this year. To make its audio offerings sustainable for the long term, Facebook is building in ways for people creating content to make money. (With input from agencies)

Facebook takes on Clubhouse, unveils big audio push, adds podcasts

Advocates for children from around the world urged&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;chief Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday to ditch plans for a version of Instagram geared toward pre-teens.

Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood and the Electronic Privacy Information Center were among nearly 100 groups and individuals from North America, Europe, Africa, and Australia to make the plea in a letter to Zuckerberg.

Instagram "exploits young people's fear of missing out and desire for peer approval," the letter contended.

"The platform's relentless focus on appearance, self-presentation, and branding presents challenges to adolescents' privacy and well-being," it argued, building on concerns about predators, bullies, and inappropriate content.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/facebook-building-a-version-of-instagram-for-children-under-13-371695">Facebook building a version of&nbsp;Instagram&nbsp;for&nbsp;children&nbsp;under 13</a>

Instagram is exploring the launch of a version of the image-centric social network for children under 13, with parental controls.

Facebook-owned Instagram, like its parent company, allows only those older than 13 to join but verifying age on the internet makes it challenging to catch all rule-breakers.

"The reality is that kids are online,"&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;spokeswoman Stephanie Otway said.

"They want to connect with their family and friends, have fun and learn, and we want to help them do that in a way that is safe and age-appropriate."

Facebook&nbsp;is working with child development and mental health experts to prioritise safety and privacy, according to Otway.

Instagram, which has more than a billion users, recently unveiled technology aimed at preventing underage children from creating accounts and blocking adults from contacting young users they don't know.

The platform is also looking at ways to make it more difficult for adults who have been exhibiting "potentially suspicious behavior" to interact with teens.

The children's advocates were dubious about the proposed youth version.

"Facebook's long track record of exploiting young people and putting them at risk makes the company particularly unsuitable as the custodian of a photo sharing and social messaging site for children," their letter said.

"In short, an Instagram site for kids will subject young children to a number of serious risks and will offer few benefits for families."

(With input from agencies)

Advocates for children from around the world urged Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday to ditch plans for a version of Instagram geared toward pre-teens. Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood and the Electronic Privacy Information Center were among nearly 100 groups and individuals from North America, Europe, Africa, and Australia to make the plea in a letter to Zuckerberg.

Advocates for children from around the world urged Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday to ditch plans for a version of Instagram geared toward pre-teens. Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood and the Electronic Privacy Information Center were among nearly 100 groups and individuals from North America, Europe, Africa, and Australia to make the plea in a letter to Zuckerberg. Instagram "exploits young people's fear of missing out and desire for peer approval," the letter contended. "The platform's relentless focus on appearance, self-presentation, and branding presents challenges to adolescents' privacy and well-being," it argued, building on concerns about predators, bullies, and inappropriate content. Also read| Facebook building a version of Instagram for children under 13 Instagram is exploring the launch of a version of the image-centric social network for children under 13, with parental controls. Facebook-owned Instagram, like its parent company, allows only those older than 13 to join but verifying age on the internet makes it challenging to catch all rule-breakers. "The reality is that kids are online," Facebook spokeswoman Stephanie Otway said. "They want to connect with their family and friends, have fun and learn, and we want to help them do that in a way that is safe and age-appropriate." Facebook is working with child development and mental health experts to prioritise safety and privacy, according to Otway. Instagram, which has more than a billion users, recently unveiled technology aimed at preventing underage children from creating accounts and blocking adults from contacting young users they don't know. The platform is also looking at ways to make it more difficult for adults who have been exhibiting "potentially suspicious behavior" to interact with teens. The children's advocates were dubious about the proposed youth version. "Facebook's long track record of exploiting young people and putting them at risk makes the company particularly unsuitable as the custodian of a photo sharing and social messaging site for children," their letter said. "In short, an Instagram site for kids will subject young children to a number of serious risks and will offer few benefits for families." (With input from agencies)

Ditch plans for kids' version of Instagram, advocates for children urge Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Germany's lead data protection regulator for Facebook said on Tuesday that it was taking action against the social network to prevent the collection of personal data from users of its WhatsApp messaging app.

The regulator in the city-state of Hamburg said that it had opened emergency proceedings against Facebook after WhatsApp earlier this year informed users that they would need to consent to new data terms or stop using the service.

"We have reason to believe that the data sharing policy between WhatsApp and Facebook is being impermissibly enforced due to the lack of voluntary and informed consent," said Hamburg's data protection officer Johannes Caspar.

Caspar, who leads domestic oversight of Facebook under Germany's federal system as its country office is in Hamburg, said he was opening a formal administrative procedure "to prevent an illegal mass exchange of data", with a view to reaching a decision before May 15.

A WhatsApp spokesperson said: “Our recent update includes new options&nbsp;people will have to message a business on WhatsApp, and provides further transparency about how we collect and use data.

"To be clear, by accepting WhatsApp’s updated terms of service, users are not agreeing to any expansion in our ability to share data with Facebook, and the update does not impact the privacy of their messages with friends or family."

The regulatory action opens a new front in Germany over Facebook's privacy policies, with the national antitrust regulator already waging a legal battle over data practices it alleges reflect an abuse of the social network's market dominance.

Since 2018, online privacy has been subject to a European Union rulebook, called the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Under the GDPR, Ireland leads oversight of Facebook because the company's European headquarters is there.

Caspar said that he was seeking to impose a three-month freeze on WhatsApp's collection of user data, citing "extraordinary circumstances" foreseen in the GDPR. The measures can be extended by the European Data Protection Board, a forum that groups regulators from the bloc's 27 member states.

Germany's lead data protection regulator for Facebook said on Tuesday that it was taking action against the social network to prevent the collection of personal data from users of its WhatsApp messaging app.

Germany's lead data protection regulator for Facebook said on Tuesday that it was taking action against the social network to prevent the collection of personal data from users of its WhatsApp messaging app. The regulator in the city-state of Hamburg said that it had opened emergency proceedings against Facebook after WhatsApp earlier this year informed users that they would need to consent to new data terms or stop using the service. "We have reason to believe that the data sharing policy between WhatsApp and Facebook is being impermissibly enforced due to the lack of voluntary and informed consent," said Hamburg's data protection officer Johannes Caspar. Caspar, who leads domestic oversight of Facebook under Germany's federal system as its country office is in Hamburg, said he was opening a formal administrative procedure "to prevent an illegal mass exchange of data", with a view to reaching a decision before May 15. A WhatsApp spokesperson said: “Our recent update includes new options people will have to message a business on WhatsApp, and provides further transparency about how we collect and use data. "To be clear, by accepting WhatsApp’s updated terms of service, users are not agreeing to any expansion in our ability to share data with Facebook, and the update does not impact the privacy of their messages with friends or family." The regulatory action opens a new front in Germany over Facebook's privacy policies, with the national antitrust regulator already waging a legal battle over data practices it alleges reflect an abuse of the social network's market dominance. Since 2018, online privacy has been subject to a European Union rulebook, called the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Under the GDPR, Ireland leads oversight of Facebook because the company's European headquarters is there. Caspar said that he was seeking to impose a three-month freeze on WhatsApp's collection of user data, citing "extraordinary circumstances" foreseen in the GDPR. The measures can be extended by the European Data Protection Board, a forum that groups regulators from the bloc's 27 member states.

German regulator taking action against WhatsApp  over 'illegal' data collection

Facebook’s oversight board on Tuesday announced that it will begin accepting cases from users of the social networks who believe the company wrongfully allowed harmful content to remain on its platform.

Facebook set up the oversight panel last year to act as the ultimate referee on whether specific content should be allowed on its platforms, amid furious criticism about its inability to respond to a tide of misinformation, hate speech and other harmful content. The board is empowered to make binding rulings on whether posts or ads violate the company’s rules.

The board includes former judges, journalists and human rights activists, who review appeals from users on material that has been taken down from Facebook and Instagram, and make binding content decisions for the social networking platforms.

"Enabling users to appeal content they want to see removed from Facebook is a significant expansion of the Oversight Board's capabilities," Thomas Hughes, director of the Oversight Board-Administration, said in a statement.

The Oversight Board said this new capability -- long sought by advocates of independent content moderation -- represents an important step toward delivering a more principled and transparent model of content moderation.

Decisions made through the Board's independent judgment are binding on Facebook.

Hughes noted that the Oversight Board was created to ensure that fewer decisions about highly significant content issues be taken by Facebook alone.

Better decisions can be delivered through an independent and transparent process that works to safeguard human rights and freedom of expression and the latest announcement is another step towards realising this, Hughes said.

Since October 2020, users have been able to appeal to the Oversight Board about their content being removed.

With an expanding rollout over the coming weeks, users -- after exhausting Facebook's appeals process -- will receive an Oversight Board Reference ID and can formally appeal for independent review. &nbsp;

The content eligible for review includes posts, status updates, photos, videos, comments and shares, the statement said.

As content will be live on Facebook and Instagram, many people may report the same piece of content. In these cases, multiple user appeals will be gathered into a single case file for the Board, providing the greater context of the impact of the content.

As with appeals on content that users want to be restored to Facebook, users may appeal to the Oversight Board once they have exhausted the appeals process with the company, the statement said.

The Oversight Board started receiving cases in October 2020. So far, the Board has received over 300,000 user appeals and thousands of public comments.

(With inputs from agencies)

Facebook’s oversight board on Tuesday announced that it will begin accepting cases from users of the social networks who believe the company wrongfully allowed harmful content to remain on its platform.

Facebook’s oversight board on Tuesday announced that it will begin accepting cases from users of the social networks who believe the company wrongfully allowed harmful content to remain on its platform. Facebook set up the oversight panel last year to act as the ultimate referee on whether specific content should be allowed on its platforms, amid furious criticism about its inability to respond to a tide of misinformation, hate speech and other harmful content. The board is empowered to make binding rulings on whether posts or ads violate the company’s rules. The board includes former judges, journalists and human rights activists, who review appeals from users on material that has been taken down from Facebook and Instagram, and make binding content decisions for the social networking platforms. "Enabling users to appeal content they want to see removed from Facebook is a significant expansion of the Oversight Board's capabilities," Thomas Hughes, director of the Oversight Board-Administration, said in a statement. The Oversight Board said this new capability -- long sought by advocates of independent content moderation -- represents an important step toward delivering a more principled and transparent model of content moderation. Decisions made through the Board's independent judgment are binding on Facebook. Hughes noted that the Oversight Board was created to ensure that fewer decisions about highly significant content issues be taken by Facebook alone. Better decisions can be delivered through an independent and transparent process that works to safeguard human rights and freedom of expression and the latest announcement is another step towards realising this, Hughes said. Since October 2020, users have been able to appeal to the Oversight Board about their content being removed. With an expanding rollout over the coming weeks, users -- after exhausting Facebook's appeals process -- will receive an Oversight Board Reference ID and can formally appeal for independent review. The content eligible for review includes posts, status updates, photos, videos, comments and shares, the statement said. As content will be live on Facebook and Instagram, many people may report the same piece of content. In these cases, multiple user appeals will be gathered into a single case file for the Board, providing the greater context of the impact of the content. As with appeals on content that users want to be restored to Facebook, users may appeal to the Oversight Board once they have exhausted the appeals process with the company, the statement said. The Oversight Board started receiving cases in October 2020. So far, the Board has received over 300,000 user appeals and thousands of public comments. (With inputs from agencies)

Facebook, Instagram users can move Oversight Board to remove harmful content

Facebook on Wednesday launched Hotline, an experimental online forum in an attempt by the social media giant to occupy space in live audio trend made popular by Clubhouse. The Facebook application is essentially a spin on Reddit's Ask Me Anything sessions and Clubhouse, the audio-only social media sensation launched a year ago which has boomed during the pandemic.

Hotline provides users with a blend of voice, text and video options for participating in online discussions with hosts.&nbsp;

On Hotline, users can ask the questions in writing. This is not possible on Clubhouse. &nbsp;Speakers, meanwhile, can choose who to invite "on stage" to speak.

"With Hotline, we're hoping to understand how interactive, live multimedia Q&amp;As can help people learn from experts in areas like professional skills, just as it helps those experts build their businesses," a Facebook spokeswoman told AFP.

Session headliners will have the option of turning on their web cameras to be seen, and can also remove abusive comments from text chats, Facebook said, confirming an earlier report on the website TechCrunch.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday that Twitter held discussions to acquire Clubhouse for USD 4 billion. However, it was further reported that the talks are no longer taking place.

(With AFP inputs)

Facebook on Wednesday launched Hotline, an experimental online forum in an attempt by the social media giant to occupy space in live audio trend made popular by Clubhouse.

Facebook on Wednesday launched Hotline, an experimental online forum in an attempt by the social media giant to occupy space in live audio trend made popular by Clubhouse. The Facebook application is essentially a spin on Reddit's Ask Me Anything sessions and Clubhouse, the audio-only social media sensation launched a year ago which has boomed during the pandemic. Hotline provides users with a blend of voice, text and video options for participating in online discussions with hosts. On Hotline, users can ask the questions in writing. This is not possible on Clubhouse. Speakers, meanwhile, can choose who to invite "on stage" to speak. "With Hotline, we're hoping to understand how interactive, live multimedia Q&As can help people learn from experts in areas like professional skills, just as it helps those experts build their businesses," a Facebook spokeswoman told AFP. Session headliners will have the option of turning on their web cameras to be seen, and can also remove abusive comments from text chats, Facebook said, confirming an earlier report on the website TechCrunch. Meanwhile, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday that Twitter held discussions to acquire Clubhouse for USD 4 billion. However, it was further reported that the talks are no longer taking place. (With AFP inputs)

Facebook, Twitter move to capture social space bagged by Clubhouse

Facebook and Instagram went down for millions of users for a couple of hours in various parts of the world early Friday morning. The outage was the second one in less than a month for the social networking giant.

People took to the online outage detector platform DownDetector as they were welcomed with a "sorry something went wrong" error message from Facebook and Instagram.

The outage appeared to affect Facebook's internal websites as well, noted in a tweet from famed developer Jane Wong.

Even Facebook`s outage dashboard appeared to be having problems.

After a couple of hours, Both Facebook and Instagram were back to normal.

On March 19, Facebook and its family of apps like WhatsApp and Instagram recovered from a major global outage caused by a technical issue.

More than 1 lakh users reported issues with Instagram on online outage tracker DownDetector, and over 25,000 users reported issues with WhatsApp.

Facebook messenger users also experienced issues.

"Earlier today, a technical issue caused people to have trouble accessing some Facebook services. We resolved this issue for everyone, and we apologise for any inconvenience," Facebook had said in a statement.

Instagram tweeted: "Some people were having issues with their Instagram accounts earlier, but we`re back now. The issue`s been fixed and we`re sorry for the trouble".

In July last year, millions of users worldwide, including in India, were left clueless when Facebook and its family of apps including WhatsApp and photo-sharing platform Instagram suffered a global outage.

Facebook and Instagram went down for millions of users for a couple of hours in various parts of the world early Friday morning. The outage was the second one in less than a month for the social networking giant.

Facebook and Instagram went down for millions of users for a couple of hours in various parts of the world early Friday morning. The outage was the second one in less than a month for the social networking giant. People took to the online outage detector platform DownDetector as they were welcomed with a "sorry something went wrong" error message from Facebook and Instagram. The outage appeared to affect Facebook's internal websites as well, noted in a tweet from famed developer Jane Wong. Even Facebook`s outage dashboard appeared to be having problems. After a couple of hours, Both Facebook and Instagram were back to normal. On March 19, Facebook and its family of apps like WhatsApp and Instagram recovered from a major global outage caused by a technical issue. More than 1 lakh users reported issues with Instagram on online outage tracker DownDetector, and over 25,000 users reported issues with WhatsApp. Facebook messenger users also experienced issues. "Earlier today, a technical issue caused people to have trouble accessing some Facebook services. We resolved this issue for everyone, and we apologise for any inconvenience," Facebook had said in a statement. Instagram tweeted: "Some people were having issues with their Instagram accounts earlier, but we`re back now. The issue`s been fixed and we`re sorry for the trouble". In July last year, millions of users worldwide, including in India, were left clueless when Facebook and its family of apps including WhatsApp and photo-sharing platform Instagram suffered a global outage.

Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp face another global outage in less than a month

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's phone number and other details have been leaked in the recent set of the data leak, alleged a security researcher. 
 
<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/data-of-more-than-500-million-facebook-accounts-posted-online-reports-375213">Also read | Data of more than 500 million Facebook accounts posted online: Reports</a> 
 
The Facebook founder’s private information was in the cache released online, which Facebook dismissed as “very old” and likely not a threat to anyone.&nbsp;

A cybersecurity researcher Dave Walker claimed that this data leak also includes the contact detail of Zuckerberg. His data is among the 32 million users (3.2 crores) in the United States whose data is leaked.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Regarding the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FacebookLeak?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FacebookLeak</a>, of the 533M people in the leak - the irony is that Mark Zuckerberg is regrettably included in the leak as well. 
 
If journalists are struggling to get a statement from <a href="https://twitter.com/Facebook?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@facebook</a>, maybe just give him a call, from the tel in the leak? 📞😂<a href="https://twitter.com/GazTheJourno?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GazTheJourno</a> <a href="https://t.co/lrqlwzFMjU">pic.twitter.com/lrqlwzFMjU</a>
— Dave Walker (@Daviey) <a href="https://twitter.com/Daviey/status/1378424183856697348?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"All 533,000,000 Facebook records were just leaked for free," Alon Gal, chief technology officer at the Hudson Rock cybercrime intelligence firm, said Saturday on Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
All 533,000,000 Facebook records were just leaked for free. 
 
This means that if you have a Facebook account, it is extremely likely the phone number used for the account was leaked. 
 
I have yet to see Facebook acknowledging this absolute negligence of your data. <a href="https://t.co/ysGCPZm5U3">https://t.co/ysGCPZm5U3</a> <a href="https://t.co/nM0Fu4GDY8">pic.twitter.com/nM0Fu4GDY8</a>
— Alon Gal (Under the Breach) (@UnderTheBreach) <a href="https://twitter.com/UnderTheBreach/status/1378314424239460352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Data of over 553 million (53 crores) Facebook users were available in a hacking forum since January. It was found that the hacker made available data that included details like phone numbers and other personal data for free.&nbsp;

This data breach includes details of users from around 106 countries, including India. It is reported that data of 11 million users in the United Kingdom and six million users in India are found in this set of data leak. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's phone number and other details have been leaked in the recent set of the data leak, alleged a security researcher. Also read | Data of more than 500 million Facebook accounts posted online: Reports The Facebook founder’s private information was in the cache released online, which Facebook dismissed as “very old” and likely not a threat to anyone.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's phone number and other details have been leaked in the recent set of the data leak, alleged a security researcher. Also read | Data of more than 500 million Facebook accounts posted online: Reports The Facebook founder’s private information was in the cache released online, which Facebook dismissed as “very old” and likely not a threat to anyone. A cybersecurity researcher Dave Walker claimed that this data leak also includes the contact detail of Zuckerberg. His data is among the 32 million users (3.2 crores) in the United States whose data is leaked. Regarding the #FacebookLeak, of the 533M people in the leak - the irony is that Mark Zuckerberg is regrettably included in the leak as well. If journalists are struggling to get a statement from @facebook, maybe just give him a call, from the tel in the leak? 📞😂@GazTheJourno pic.twitter.com/lrqlwzFMjU — Dave Walker (@Daviey) April 3, 2021 × "All 533,000,000 Facebook records were just leaked for free," Alon Gal, chief technology officer at the Hudson Rock cybercrime intelligence firm, said Saturday on Twitter. All 533,000,000 Facebook records were just leaked for free. This means that if you have a Facebook account, it is extremely likely the phone number used for the account was leaked. I have yet to see Facebook acknowledging this absolute negligence of your data. https://t.co/ysGCPZm5U3 pic.twitter.com/nM0Fu4GDY8 — Alon Gal (Under the Breach) (@UnderTheBreach) April 3, 2021 × Data of over 553 million (53 crores) Facebook users were available in a hacking forum since January. It was found that the hacker made available data that included details like phone numbers and other personal data for free. This data breach includes details of users from around 106 countries, including India. It is reported that data of 11 million users in the United Kingdom and six million users in India are found in this set of data leak. (With inputs from agencies)

Mark Zuckerberg’s private phone number goes online in Facebook hack

Data of more than 500 million <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/facebook?page=1">Facebook</a> users has been posted online. The data from these accounts was originally leaked in 2019.

Sensitive information such as email address, name, phone number, anniversaries and birthdays, relationship status and more has now been posted on an online hackers forum, a cybercrime expert and several media reports claimed.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/facebook-rolls-out-feature-to-turn-off-comments-on-posts-374758" hreflang="en">Facebook rolls out feature to turn off comments on posts</a>

"All 533,000,000 Facebook records were just leaked for free," Alon Gal, chief technology officer at the Hudson Rock cybercrime intelligence firm, said Saturday on Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
All 533,000,000 Facebook records were just leaked for free. 
 
This means that if you have a Facebook account, it is extremely likely the phone number used for the account was leaked. 
 
I have yet to see Facebook acknowledging this absolute negligence of your data. <a href="https://t.co/ysGCPZm5U3">https://t.co/ysGCPZm5U3</a> <a href="https://t.co/nM0Fu4GDY8">pic.twitter.com/nM0Fu4GDY8</a>
— Alon Gal (Under the Breach) (@UnderTheBreach) <a href="https://twitter.com/UnderTheBreach/status/1378314424239460352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

It has also been claimed that some of the leaked information is current, meaning the users are still using the same phone numbers etc.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/asian-americans-and-blacks-experienced-increased-online-harassment-in-2020-survey-372852" hreflang="en">Asian Americans and Blacks experienced increased online harassment in 2020: Survey</a>

"This means that if you have a Facebook account, it is extremely likely the phone number used for the account was leaked," Gal claimed.

However, Facebook has denied this, claiming the issue was fixed in 2019 itself.

"This is old data that was previously reported on in 2019," Facebook's spokesperson was quoted by AFP. "We found and fixed this issue in August 2019."

Gal, on the other hand, claims nearly 32 million American accounts and 20 million French accounts were up for sale in January.

"Bad actors will certainly use the information for social engineering, scamming, hacking and marketing," he tweeted.

Data of more than 500 million Facebook users has been posted online. The data from these accounts was originally leaked in 2019. Sensitive information such as email address, name, phone number, anniversaries and birthdays, relationship status and more has now been posted on an online hackers forum, a cybercrime expert and several media reports claimed.

Data of more than 500 million Facebook users has been posted online. The data from these accounts was originally leaked in 2019. Sensitive information such as email address, name, phone number, anniversaries and birthdays, relationship status and more has now been posted on an online hackers forum, a cybercrime expert and several media reports claimed. Also read | Facebook rolls out feature to turn off comments on posts "All 533,000,000 Facebook records were just leaked for free," Alon Gal, chief technology officer at the Hudson Rock cybercrime intelligence firm, said Saturday on Twitter. All 533,000,000 Facebook records were just leaked for free. This means that if you have a Facebook account, it is extremely likely the phone number used for the account was leaked. I have yet to see Facebook acknowledging this absolute negligence of your data. https://t.co/ysGCPZm5U3 pic.twitter.com/nM0Fu4GDY8 — Alon Gal (Under the Breach) (@UnderTheBreach) April 3, 2021 × It has also been claimed that some of the leaked information is current, meaning the users are still using the same phone numbers etc. Also read | Asian Americans and Blacks experienced increased online harassment in 2020: Survey "This means that if you have a Facebook account, it is extremely likely the phone number used for the account was leaked," Gal claimed. However, Facebook has denied this, claiming the issue was fixed in 2019 itself. "This is old data that was previously reported on in 2019," Facebook's spokesperson was quoted by AFP. "We found and fixed this issue in August 2019." Gal, on the other hand, claims nearly 32 million American accounts and 20 million French accounts were up for sale in January. "Bad actors will certainly use the information for social engineering, scamming, hacking and marketing," he tweeted.

Data of more than 500 million Facebook accounts posted online: Reports

Facebook&nbsp;Inc said it was taking steps to combat hate speech and misinformation in India as part of its efforts to curb spread of misinformation during elections in four Indian states.

"We recognise that there are certain types of content, such as hate speech, that could lead to imminent, offline harm...To decrease the risk of problematic content going viral in these states and potentially inciting violence ahead of or during the election, we will significantly reduce the distribution of content that our proactive detection technology identifies as likely hate speech or violence and incitement," it added.

Facebook&nbsp;has been under fire globally for alleged lapses in controlling hate speech. In the United States, the social media giant put a months-long freeze on political, electoral and social ads to crack down on misinformation and abuses around the November&nbsp;3 presidential elections.

Facebook has drawn flak in the past for its handling of hate speech on the platform in the country. India is among the biggest markets for Facebook and its group companies, WhatsApp and Instagram. According to government data, India has 53 crore WhatsApp users, 41 crore Facebook users, and 21 crore users of Instagram.

The US-based company said it has invested significantly in proactive detection technology to help identify violating content more quickly.

In its blog, Facebook said based on lessons it has learned from past elections in India and globally, it is taking steps to enhance civic engagement, combat hate speech, limit misinformation and remove voter suppression amid elections across Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Assam, Kerala and Puducherry.

"To decrease the risk of problematic content going viral in these states and potentially inciting violence ahead of or during the election, we will significantly reduce the distribution of content that our proactive detection technology identifies as likely hate speech or violence and incitement,"&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;said.

It has also designed Election Day reminders to give voters accurate information and encourage them to share it with friends on&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;and WhatsApp, the company said.

In 2019, led by industry body IAMAI, Facebook had set up a high priority channel with the Election Commission of India (ECI) for Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, to receive content-related escalations.

The company also works with third-party fact-checkers around the world, including eight partners in India, to provide people with additional context about the content they're seeing on Facebook.

In addition to English, these eight partners fact-check in 11 Indian languages including Bengali, Tamil, Malayalam and Assamese.

When a fact-checker rates a story as false, such content is labelled and shown lower in News Feed, significantly reducing its distribution.

This stops its spread and reduces the number of people who see it, Facebook said.&nbsp;

Facebook Inc said it was taking steps to combat hate speech and misinformation in India as part of its efforts to curb spread of misinformation during elections in four Indian states.

Facebook Inc said it was taking steps to combat hate speech and misinformation in India as part of its efforts to curb spread of misinformation during elections in four Indian states. "We recognise that there are certain types of content, such as hate speech, that could lead to imminent, offline harm...To decrease the risk of problematic content going viral in these states and potentially inciting violence ahead of or during the election, we will significantly reduce the distribution of content that our proactive detection technology identifies as likely hate speech or violence and incitement," it added. Facebook has been under fire globally for alleged lapses in controlling hate speech. In the United States, the social media giant put a months-long freeze on political, electoral and social ads to crack down on misinformation and abuses around the November 3 presidential elections. Facebook has drawn flak in the past for its handling of hate speech on the platform in the country. India is among the biggest markets for Facebook and its group companies, WhatsApp and Instagram. According to government data, India has 53 crore WhatsApp users, 41 crore Facebook users, and 21 crore users of Instagram. The US-based company said it has invested significantly in proactive detection technology to help identify violating content more quickly. In its blog, Facebook said based on lessons it has learned from past elections in India and globally, it is taking steps to enhance civic engagement, combat hate speech, limit misinformation and remove voter suppression amid elections across Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Assam, Kerala and Puducherry. "To decrease the risk of problematic content going viral in these states and potentially inciting violence ahead of or during the election, we will significantly reduce the distribution of content that our proactive detection technology identifies as likely hate speech or violence and incitement," Facebook said. It has also designed Election Day reminders to give voters accurate information and encourage them to share it with friends on Facebook and WhatsApp, the company said. In 2019, led by industry body IAMAI, Facebook had set up a high priority channel with the Election Commission of India (ECI) for Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, to receive content-related escalations. The company also works with third-party fact-checkers around the world, including eight partners in India, to provide people with additional context about the content they're seeing on Facebook. In addition to English, these eight partners fact-check in 11 Indian languages including Bengali, Tamil, Malayalam and Assamese. When a fact-checker rates a story as false, such content is labelled and shown lower in News Feed, significantly reducing its distribution. This stops its spread and reduces the number of people who see it, Facebook said.

Facebook to curb hate speech amid elections in Indian states

Alphabet unit Google will contribute 25 million euros ($29.3 million) to the newly set up European Media and Information Fund to combat fake news, the company said on Wednesday, amid criticism tech giants are not doing enough to debunk online disinformation.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the US election last year spurred a massive spike in misinformation, with some blaming social media for not being more proactive in tackling the issue while regulators have indicated they may take action via heavy-handed restrictions.

The European Media and Information Fund, launched by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute last week, aims to enlist researchers, fact-checkers, not-for-profits and other public interest-oriented bodies to help in the fight against fake news.

"While navigating the uncertainty and challenges of the last year, it has proven more important than ever for people to access accurate information, and sort facts from fiction," Matt Brittin, head of Google's EMEA Business &amp; Operations, said in a blog post.

The fund has a duration of five years. The European Digital Media Observatory, which is a European Commission project set up last year and whose members include fact-checkers and academic researchers, will evaluate and select the projects.

Alphabet unit Google will contribute 25 million euros ($29.3 million) to the newly set up European Media and Information Fund to combat fake news, the company said on Wednesday, amid criticism tech giants are not doing enough to debunk online disinformation.

Alphabet unit Google will contribute 25 million euros ($29.3 million) to the newly set up European Media and Information Fund to combat fake news, the company said on Wednesday, amid criticism tech giants are not doing enough to debunk online disinformation. The COVID-19 pandemic and the US election last year spurred a massive spike in misinformation, with some blaming social media for not being more proactive in tackling the issue while regulators have indicated they may take action via heavy-handed restrictions. The European Media and Information Fund, launched by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute last week, aims to enlist researchers, fact-checkers, not-for-profits and other public interest-oriented bodies to help in the fight against fake news. "While navigating the uncertainty and challenges of the last year, it has proven more important than ever for people to access accurate information, and sort facts from fiction," Matt Brittin, head of Google's EMEA Business & Operations, said in a blog post. The fund has a duration of five years. The European Digital Media Observatory, which is a European Commission project set up last year and whose members include fact-checkers and academic researchers, will evaluate and select the projects.

Google to contribute $29 million to new European Union fund to fight fake news

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg laid out steps to reform a key internet law on Wednesday, saying that companies should have immunity from liability only if they follow best practices for removing damaging material from their platforms. 
 
In testimony prepared for a joint hearing before two House Energy and Commerce subcommittees on Thursday, Zuckerberg acknowledged the calls from lawmakers for changes to a law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives companies like Facebook immunity from liability over content posted by users. 
 
The hearing titled `Disinformation Nation: Social media`s role in promoting extremism and misinformation` is designed to address concerns Democrats have had about the spread of misinformation during the coronavirus pandemic and the presidential election. 
 
It is also likely to discuss ways to hold tech platforms accountable by reforming the internet law. The chief executives of Google and Twitter will also testify at the hearing. 
 
Google`s Sundar Pichai will make suggestions to reform the law but, unlike Zuckerberg, will not advocate for adoption of a set of best practices, according to his testimony. Twitter`s Jack Dorsey will lay out steps the platform has taken to tackle misinformation. 
 
Zuckerberg and Pichai will also urge caution as Congress considers reforming the law. 
 
"Platforms should not be held liable if a particular piece of content evades its detection -- that would be impractical for platforms with billions of posts per day," Zuckerberg wrote in his testimony. 
 
Google`s Pichai also struck a similar note saying "without Section 230, platforms would either over-filter content or not be able to filter content at all." 
 
Pichai instead proposed solutions such as developing content policies that are clear and accessible, notifying people when their content is removed and giving them ways to appeal content decisions. 
 
There are several pieces of legislation from Democrats to reform Section 230 that are doing the rounds in Congress. Several Republican lawmakers have also been pushing separately to scrap the law entirely.

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg laid out steps to reform a key internet law on Wednesday, saying that companies should have immunity from liability only if they follow best practices for removing damaging material from their platforms.

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg laid out steps to reform a key internet law on Wednesday, saying that companies should have immunity from liability only if they follow best practices for removing damaging material from their platforms. In testimony prepared for a joint hearing before two House Energy and Commerce subcommittees on Thursday, Zuckerberg acknowledged the calls from lawmakers for changes to a law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives companies like Facebook immunity from liability over content posted by users. The hearing titled `Disinformation Nation: Social media`s role in promoting extremism and misinformation` is designed to address concerns Democrats have had about the spread of misinformation during the coronavirus pandemic and the presidential election. It is also likely to discuss ways to hold tech platforms accountable by reforming the internet law. The chief executives of Google and Twitter will also testify at the hearing. Google`s Sundar Pichai will make suggestions to reform the law but, unlike Zuckerberg, will not advocate for adoption of a set of best practices, according to his testimony. Twitter`s Jack Dorsey will lay out steps the platform has taken to tackle misinformation. Zuckerberg and Pichai will also urge caution as Congress considers reforming the law. "Platforms should not be held liable if a particular piece of content evades its detection -- that would be impractical for platforms with billions of posts per day," Zuckerberg wrote in his testimony. Google`s Pichai also struck a similar note saying "without Section 230, platforms would either over-filter content or not be able to filter content at all." Pichai instead proposed solutions such as developing content policies that are clear and accessible, notifying people when their content is removed and giving them ways to appeal content decisions. There are several pieces of legislation from Democrats to reform Section 230 that are doing the rounds in Congress. Several Republican lawmakers have also been pushing separately to scrap the law entirely.

Facebook, Google CEOs suggest ways to reform key internet law

Russian authorities are suing five social media platforms for allegedly failing to delete posts urging children to take part in illegal protests, the Interfax news agency cited a Moscow court as saying on Tuesday.

Twitter, Google, Facebook each have three cases against them, with each violation punishable by a fine of up to 4 million roubles (around $54,000), and cases have also been filed against Tiktok and Telegram, the report said.

The cases were opened after protests nationwide over last month's jailing of Alexei Navalny, a prominent critic of President Vladimir Putin.

Navalny and his supporters say his 30-month sentence, for alleged parole violations related to an embezzlement case, was trumped up for political reasons, something the authorities deny.

Google declined to comment on the Interfax report. Facebook, Twitter, Tiktok and Telegram did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The cases against Google, Facebook and Twitter will be heard on April 2, the agency said.

Russian authorities are suing five social media platforms for allegedly failing to delete posts urging children to take part in illegal protests, the Interfax news agency cited a Moscow court as saying on Tuesday.

Russian authorities are suing five social media platforms for allegedly failing to delete posts urging children to take part in illegal protests, the Interfax news agency cited a Moscow court as saying on Tuesday. Twitter, Google, Facebook each have three cases against them, with each violation punishable by a fine of up to 4 million roubles (around $54,000), and cases have also been filed against Tiktok and Telegram, the report said. The cases were opened after protests nationwide over last month's jailing of Alexei Navalny, a prominent critic of President Vladimir Putin. Navalny and his supporters say his 30-month sentence, for alleged parole violations related to an embezzlement case, was trumped up for political reasons, something the authorities deny. Google declined to comment on the Interfax report. Facebook, Twitter, Tiktok and Telegram did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The cases against Google, Facebook and Twitter will be heard on April 2, the agency said.

Russia sues Google, Facebook, Twitter for not deleting protest content: Report

If you thought you have had enough of Instagram's 'Reels' features, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/facebook">Facebook</a> has one more similar concept for you, but with a twist.

The social media giant, Facebook, has launched a new app called BARS that is being dubbed as a 'TikTok look-alike' but with a more concentrated audience and slight change.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/can-we-do-without-big-tech-companies-364919" hreflang="en">Can we do without big tech companies?</a>

Developed by Facebook's New Product Experimentation (NPE) R&amp;D team, the app is currently available only under closed beta testing.

"No formal rap experience required — you can create something great whether you’ve just thought of a dope couplet or have been freestyling for years," BARS Community Manager DJ Iyer said in a blog post.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/the-real-power-of-facebook-364913" hreflang="en">The real power of Facebook</a>

This app will allow users to create and share raps with built-in tools, that will let the users create raps without any formal background or experience of rapping.

While the timeframe and other concepts are similar to TikTok and Instagram's Reels feature, the BARS app is specifically designed for creating content only in rap style, setting it aside from all other short-video platforms.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/facebook-to-launch-smartwatch-with-messaging-fitness-features-363611" hreflang="en">Facebook to launch smartwatch with messaging, fitness features</a>

This app can suggest rhymes using a rhyming dictionary to help the budding rappers with the flow. There are also pre-recorded beats and pre-loaded tools such as Clean, AutoTune, Imaginary Friends, and AM Radio to help record a rap professional-style.

"I know access to high-priced recording studios and production equipment can be limited for aspiring rappers. On top of that, the global pandemic shut down live performances where we often create and share our work," DJ Iyer said. "So, along with a group of aspiring rappers, we've been building BARS: a place for aspiring rappers to create and share their art."

As of now, the app is available in the US App Store only and is available for select iOS users. The app also has a waitlist where people can sign up to use the platform post-release.

If you thought you have had enough of Instagram's 'Reels' features, Facebook has one more similar concept for you, but with a twist. The social media giant, Facebook, has launched a new app called BARS that is being dubbed as a 'TikTok look-alike' but with a more concentrated audience and slight change.

If you thought you have had enough of Instagram's 'Reels' features, Facebook has one more similar concept for you, but with a twist. The social media giant, Facebook, has launched a new app called BARS that is being dubbed as a 'TikTok look-alike' but with a more concentrated audience and slight change. Also read| Can we do without big tech companies? Developed by Facebook's New Product Experimentation (NPE) R&D team, the app is currently available only under closed beta testing. "No formal rap experience required — you can create something great whether you’ve just thought of a dope couplet or have been freestyling for years," BARS Community Manager DJ Iyer said in a blog post. Also read| The real power of Facebook This app will allow users to create and share raps with built-in tools, that will let the users create raps without any formal background or experience of rapping. While the timeframe and other concepts are similar to TikTok and Instagram's Reels feature, the BARS app is specifically designed for creating content only in rap style, setting it aside from all other short-video platforms. Also read| Facebook to launch smartwatch with messaging, fitness features This app can suggest rhymes using a rhyming dictionary to help the budding rappers with the flow. There are also pre-recorded beats and pre-loaded tools such as Clean, AutoTune, Imaginary Friends, and AM Radio to help record a rap professional-style. "I know access to high-priced recording studios and production equipment can be limited for aspiring rappers. On top of that, the global pandemic shut down live performances where we often create and share our work," DJ Iyer said. "So, along with a group of aspiring rappers, we've been building BARS: a place for aspiring rappers to create and share their art." As of now, the app is available in the US App Store only and is available for select iOS users. The app also has a waitlist where people can sign up to use the platform post-release.

TikTok lookalike? Facebook launches new app, BARS, for rappers

Facebook ended one-week news blackout in Australia on Friday. The popular social media network also announced preliminary agreements with three small local publishers. This came just a day after Australian parliament passed a law forcing Facebook and Alphabet, Google's parent company to pay local media companies for content.

Australia has thus become first country in the world where a government arbitrator can set the price Facebook and Google pay domestic media to show their content if private negotiations fail. Canada and other countries have shown interest in replicating Australia`s reforms.

Facebook said it had signed partnership agreements with Schwartz Media, Solstice Media and Private Media. The trio own a mix of publications, including weekly newspapers, online magazines and specialist periodicals. Facebook hasn't disclosed financial details of the agreements. The deals will become effective within 60 days if full deal is signed.

"These agreements will bring a new slate of premium journalism, including some previously paywalled content, to Facebook," the social media company said in a statement.

The non-binding agreements allay some fears that small Australian publishers would be left out of revenue-sharing deals with Facebook and Google.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/twitter-announces-super-follow-feature-that-will-ask-users-pay-for-content-366313">Twitter announces 'Super Follow' feature that will ask users pay for content</a>

"It`s never been more important than it is now to have a plurality of voices in the Australian press," said Schwartz Media Chief Executive Rebecca Costello.

Facebook on Tuesday struck a similar agreement with Seven West Media, which owns a free-to-air television network and the main metropolitan newspaper in the city of Perth.

The Australian Broadcasting Corp has said it was also in talks with Facebook.

Facebook and Google threatened for months to pull core services from Australia if the media laws took effect.

While Google struck deals with several publishers including News Corp as the legislation made its way through parliament, Facebook took the more drastic step of blocking all news content in Australia.

(With Reuters inputs)

Facebook ended one-week news blackout in Australia on Friday. The popular social media network also announced preliminary agreements with three small local publishers.

Facebook ended one-week news blackout in Australia on Friday. The popular social media network also announced preliminary agreements with three small local publishers. This came just a day after Australian parliament passed a law forcing Facebook and Alphabet, Google's parent company to pay local media companies for content. Australia has thus become first country in the world where a government arbitrator can set the price Facebook and Google pay domestic media to show their content if private negotiations fail. Canada and other countries have shown interest in replicating Australia`s reforms. Facebook said it had signed partnership agreements with Schwartz Media, Solstice Media and Private Media. The trio own a mix of publications, including weekly newspapers, online magazines and specialist periodicals. Facebook hasn't disclosed financial details of the agreements. The deals will become effective within 60 days if full deal is signed. "These agreements will bring a new slate of premium journalism, including some previously paywalled content, to Facebook," the social media company said in a statement. The non-binding agreements allay some fears that small Australian publishers would be left out of revenue-sharing deals with Facebook and Google. Also Read | Twitter announces 'Super Follow' feature that will ask users pay for content "It`s never been more important than it is now to have a plurality of voices in the Australian press," said Schwartz Media Chief Executive Rebecca Costello. Facebook on Tuesday struck a similar agreement with Seven West Media, which owns a free-to-air television network and the main metropolitan newspaper in the city of Perth. The Australian Broadcasting Corp has said it was also in talks with Facebook. Facebook and Google threatened for months to pull core services from Australia if the media laws took effect. While Google struck deals with several publishers including News Corp as the legislation made its way through parliament, Facebook took the more drastic step of blocking all news content in Australia. (With Reuters inputs)

Facebook relents, switches news back on in Australia

The dream run of tech giants in India could soon be over as the government has unveiled a new set of guidelines. Content will now be regulated. Dispute resolution will be swift and trouble-makers will not be protected. This is India's playbook to rein in big tech. It's a template that you will probably see more and more countries adopt.&nbsp;

The battles lines have been drawn after more than a decade of unchecked expansion. The walls are closing in on tech giants. The latest blow was dealt by India. New guidelines have been introduced. These tough ones will rein in the likes of Facebook and Twitter. Three months from now, the new digital regime will take effect.&nbsp;

it will make the Indian state, a stakeholder in content regulation. The full draft is yet to be released but a few provisions stand out.&nbsp;

First, the removal of objectionable content and complaints will have to be registered in 24 hours. Following which, there is a 15-day deadline for redressal but if the content is highly provocative or hurtful as it must be taken down in 24 hours.&nbsp;

These complaints will be compiled by a grievance officer, who must reside in India. All social media companies will have to produce a monthly compliance report. How many complaints were registered? In how many cases action was taken?&nbsp;

They can't protect the trouble-makers as well. If an Indian court or the government wants to trace content on social media, the companies will have to take names. Where did the objectionable content emerge? Which accounts amplified it? Information that they have always denied. Big tech does not have a fixed yardstick. In Europe and the US, they often submit to government scrutiny.&nbsp;

Elsewhere, they run riot, stealing private data and fuelling propaganda.&nbsp;

Ravi Shankar Prasad, law minister, India said, "Every social media platforms are welcome in India, but, with utmost respect, I would like to say that there shouldn't be double standards. If an attack is there on Capitol Hill in Congress, then social media supports the police action but if there's an aggressive attack on the Red Fort, the symbol of India's freedom where our Prime Minister hoists the National Flag, you have double standards. this is plainly unacceptable."&nbsp;

There are new rules for streaming services as well. They will be overseen by a self-regulatory body headed by a retired supreme court or high court judge.&nbsp;

The content will no longer be one size fits all. There will be five categories based on age, such as universal, aged 7+, 13+, 16+ and adult. There will be an exhaustive age verification process for adult content. &nbsp;

These guidelines are in a way unprecedented in most parts of the world. Social media is internet's wilderness, a land beyond laws. For years, tech giants have fought against checks but now the movement has gone global. Compliance is the only option. Facebook's reaction to the new guidelines says it all. "We have always been clear as a company that we welcome regulations that set guidelines for addressing today’s toughest challenges on the internet," it said.&nbsp;

India's new guidelines could become a global playbook. One thing's for sure, tech giants are no more the darlings of the internet but the question is can they avoid becoming its scourge?&nbsp;

The dream run of tech giants in India could soon be over as the government has unveiled a new set of guidelines. Content will now be regulated. Dispute resolution will be swift and trouble-makers will not be protected.

The dream run of tech giants in India could soon be over as the government has unveiled a new set of guidelines. Content will now be regulated. Dispute resolution will be swift and trouble-makers will not be protected. This is India's playbook to rein in big tech. It's a template that you will probably see more and more countries adopt. The battles lines have been drawn after more than a decade of unchecked expansion. The walls are closing in on tech giants. The latest blow was dealt by India. New guidelines have been introduced. These tough ones will rein in the likes of Facebook and Twitter. Three months from now, the new digital regime will take effect. it will make the Indian state, a stakeholder in content regulation. The full draft is yet to be released but a few provisions stand out. First, the removal of objectionable content and complaints will have to be registered in 24 hours. Following which, there is a 15-day deadline for redressal but if the content is highly provocative or hurtful as it must be taken down in 24 hours. These complaints will be compiled by a grievance officer, who must reside in India. All social media companies will have to produce a monthly compliance report. How many complaints were registered? In how many cases action was taken? They can't protect the trouble-makers as well. If an Indian court or the government wants to trace content on social media, the companies will have to take names. Where did the objectionable content emerge? Which accounts amplified it? Information that they have always denied. Big tech does not have a fixed yardstick. In Europe and the US, they often submit to government scrutiny. Elsewhere, they run riot, stealing private data and fuelling propaganda. Ravi Shankar Prasad, law minister, India said, "Every social media platforms are welcome in India, but, with utmost respect, I would like to say that there shouldn't be double standards. If an attack is there on Capitol Hill in Congress, then social media supports the police action but if there's an aggressive attack on the Red Fort, the symbol of India's freedom where our Prime Minister hoists the National Flag, you have double standards. this is plainly unacceptable." There are new rules for streaming services as well. They will be overseen by a self-regulatory body headed by a retired supreme court or high court judge. The content will no longer be one size fits all. There will be five categories based on age, such as universal, aged 7+, 13+, 16+ and adult. There will be an exhaustive age verification process for adult content. These guidelines are in a way unprecedented in most parts of the world. Social media is internet's wilderness, a land beyond laws. For years, tech giants have fought against checks but now the movement has gone global. Compliance is the only option. Facebook's reaction to the new guidelines says it all. "We have always been clear as a company that we welcome regulations that set guidelines for addressing today’s toughest challenges on the internet," it said. India's new guidelines could become a global playbook. One thing's for sure, tech giants are no more the darlings of the internet but the question is can they avoid becoming its scourge?

India's new guidelines could become a global playbook 

facebook-0

Facebook, News on Facebook, stories on Facebook, articles on Facebook, Facebook stories at Wion, Facebook news, Facebook latest news

facebook 0