I admit it - I rather like the new U2 album, which came free to every one with an iTunes account.
I'm a Dad. It's Dad rock. What do you expect?
Fascinating interview with Monika Bickert, the head of global policy for Facebook:
We use technology to help us triage reports, and we also use Microsoft’s Photo DNA to help us prevent images of child exploitation from being uploaded to the site, but human beings are the people responsible for reviewing content at Facebook. We take a lot of pride in that. We have people that are specialized by topic area, so a safety team, which has experts on everything from terrorism to self harm. Then we also have people who are language specialists, so if something is reported from Turkey, the person who reviews that will be a native Turkish speaker.
Lots of corporate jargon, too, but you can see some interesting shapes through the linguistic obfuscation.
While I'm quoting Tweets:
The people have spoken. And they have said: stop delivering bloated-for-no-reason payloads to my iPad each month. pic.twitter.com/O0E3BZA24F— MG Siegler (@parislemon) September 14, 2014
Hard to disagree. And people have been saying this for a long time.
That's not to say that digital magazines can't be done right on tablets. It's just that the current approach of shovelling the print edition into a digital replica, and hiding it behind the Newsstand icon isn't going to work.
This has been lurking in my tabs for a while. Facebook is starting to experimentally mark satirical articles - from The Onion in particular - as such:
"We are running a small test which shows the text “[Satire]" in front of links to satirical articles in the related articles unit in News Feed. This is because we received feedback that people wanted a clearer way to distinguish satirical articles from others in these units," a Facebook representative told Mashable.
Some feel this isn't needed:
@richjm Oh no. Nothing like ruining a good joke by having to tell people it's meant to be funny— LauraOliver (@LauraOliver) August 18, 2014
My counter argument? There's an entire site devoted to examples of people not realising that Onion articles are humour:
There is something about the personal blog, yourname.com, where you control everything and get to do whatever the hell pleases you. There is something about linking to one of those blogs and then saying something. It’s like having a conversation in public with each other. This is how blogging was in the early days. And this is how blogging is today, if you want it to be.
Lots of protesting going on around the internets today. Here's an explanation:
The Guardian has more depth on the fight for Net Neutrality.
In the days before comments on blogs, you could generally have a thoughtful conversation online without everything degenerating into madness and chaos simply because responding to a post required that you wrote a post on your own blog and linked back. This created a certain level of default accountability because if someone wanted to flame you, they had to do it on their own real estate, and couldn't just crap all over yours anonymously. So in the spirit of old-school blogging, I'll approve comments here, but am much more likely to engage if you create a blog post of your own and link back.
My blog’s older than Twitter and Facebook, and it will outlive them. It has seen Flickr explode and then fade. It’s seen Google Wave and Google Reader come and go, and it’ll still be here as Google Plus fades. When Medium and Tumblr are gone, my blog will be here.
Interesting interview with Anthony De Rosa:
Through live blogging, De Rosa says he began to learn the value of information verification. Social media poses an increasingly large problem in the spreading of false or inaccurate information. Especially in times of breaking news, events unfold extremely quickly. There are many people feeding conflicting information into networks through their phones. Users blindly share information without considering the root of the source, and it spreads like wildfire.
There's a marked difference between doing journalism with new tools, and using new tools to rethink journalism. De Rosa is making a pretty good fist of the latter right now.