Tik Tok tries to combat bullying, suppresses bullied groups from platform

Hey Social Media …

TikTok pulled a very Scumbag-Steve move recently, admitting that in an effort to curb bullying on its platform, it had asked moderators to flag accounts from people who “looked like the type of person others might want to bully” and then suppressed those accounts. #victimshaming

Via Slate: “TikTok, a social network video app with more than 1 billion downloads globally, admitted Tuesday to a set of policies that had suppressed the reach of content created by users assumed to be “vulnerable to cyberbullying.” As examples of users “susceptible to bullying or harassment,” the policy listed people with facial disfigurement, autism, Down syndrome, and “Disabled people or people with some facial problems such as birthmark, slight squint and etc.”

The admission came after the German site Netzpolitik reported that TikTok asked moderators to watch 15-second videos and decide if the creator looked like the type of person others might want to bully. If so, moderators were instructed to add flags to the accounts of these “vulnerable” users. These flags would stop their videos from being shown to audiences outside their home countries and, in some cases, would even prevent their videos from appearing in other users’ feeds. A list of flagged users obtained by Netzpolitik included people with and without disabilities, whose bios included hashtags like #fatwoman and #disabled or had rainbow flags and other LGBTQ identifiers.”

Why it’s hot:

Loss of trust: Social media plays a roll in both exacerbating and alleviating many social problems, including the bullying epidemic, but when those at the helm display their ignorance coupled with a reluctance to curb abusive users, trust is diminished.

Lack of control (or willingness): One more chapter in social media’s terrible track record of encouraging the worst parts of humanity and then exposing just how inept they are at controlling malicious activity on their platforms.

Source: Slate

Our Next Item Up for Bid: Your Personal Data

Link

The broadband privacy rules created by the FCC last year and vigorously debated last night are in grave danger after the Senate voted to repeal them this morning.

The rules, which forced internet service providers to get permission before selling your data, were overturned using the little-used Congressional Review Act (CRA). This is now being called “the single biggest step backwards in online privacy in many years” by those that spoke out against the repeal as well as the co-creator of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Sen. Ed Markey.

This is a big deal and a pretty bad idea for anyone even remotely concerned with privacy and limiting the already questionable practices of telecoms and ISPs.

Assuming that this resolution passes through the House, which seems likely at this point, your broadband and wireless internet service provider will have free reign to collect and sell personal data along to third parties. That information may include (but is not limited to) location, financial, healthcare and browsing data scraped from customers. As a result of the ruling, you can expect ISPs to begin collecting this data by default.

To play the devil’s advocate for a second, let’s assume there is some upside for companies in this deregulation: “You want the entrepreneurial spirit to thrive, but you have to be able to say ‘no, I don’t want you in my living room.’ Yes, we’re capitalists, but we’re capitalists with a conscience.” states Sen Ed Markey. But with the wireless and cable industries both operating as powerful oligopolies, consumers will be left with zero protection against price-gouging, no advocate for net neutrality, and as today demonstrates, far less control over their own data.

The broadband privacy rule, among other things, expanded an existing rule by defining a few extra items as personal information, such as browsing history. This information joins medical records, credit card numbers and so on as information that your ISP is obligated to handle differently, asking if it can collect it and use it.

There is Nothing Hot about this.

You can see the utility of the rule right away; browsing records are very personal indeed, and ISPs are in a unique position to collect pretty much all of it if you’re not actively obscuring it. Facebook and Google see a lot, sure, but ISPs see a lot too, and a very different set of data.

Why should they be able to aggregate it and sell it without your permission? Perhaps to gain competitive advantage or profit or to cull other aggregators, in order to better target ads or build a profile of you. The FCC thought not, and proposed the rule, part of which was rescinded by the new FCC leadership before it even took effect. *Sigh*

If consumers continue to lose trust in the platforms we employ to market our brands and begin to widely question their safety, security and data usage, we are in big trouble. We’re already challenged by a litany of brand safety concerns – bots, fraud, hackers, malware, viewability –  and solutions aimed to mitigate yet limit marketing effectiveness (ex. ad blocking) continue to gain momentum. While some of this is good digital evolution (flashback to needing a pop-up blocker just to endure an average online session), the lack of consumer trust quickly erodes to lack of brand trust and soon those left behind willingly (or unknowingly) allowing their data to be sold on the open market might not be the ones worth reaching.

ISPs can now sell your browsing history without permission, thanks to the Senate

Senate votes to allow ISPs to collect personal data without permission

Do you “trust” Big Pharma? Do you care? Innovation.org bought to you by PhRMA lobbying group

Reputation plays a big role in many industries. For Big Pharma, each year brings a new corporate reputation survey that places the industry one notch above car salesmen and insurance companies. While there are many reasons for this – from the regulatory handcuffs of the FDA, to DTC-ads with their scary voice-overs, or frustration over drugs being too expensive to afford — there is a clear need to try and let the industry tell its story.

Thus, www.innovation.org. Here is the home of the industries “story.” HS Innovation.org h.page 8.27There is a ton of information, interactivity, mobile-friendly content. Just one of the top three tiles is an interactive guide to understanding clinical trials — one of the industries biggest issues due to poor patient recruitment and that they take so long and cost so much; next to that, articles and slideshow carousels on innovation and the future. Just from the home page, you can educate yourself with content that has never before been aggregated and delivered in such a consumer-friendly User Experience.

HS Innovation.org top 3 tiles

HS Clinical Eco-system 8.27

Why is this hot? Biopharma/Life Sciences is an enormous and incredibly complex and little understood industry. This content-rich Web site may seem like the industry is pulling back the curtain: but is it believable? At the very least, if you want to get an education on many aspects of the industry, this would be the place to do it.

This new site, www.innovation.org was created by the industry lobbying trade group, PhRMA. While their key audience may be politicians, policy-makers and such, this site was clearly created for patients and those in the public who relish information and any potential transparency that comes with it.

Oddly enough, while reputation can have a direct correlation to trusting a company’s product, it has little meaning or impact in Biopharma/Life Sciences. Most patients have no idea what company makes a drug; and most doctors, while aware, are driven by other more quantitative factors like clinical data.

So we have to ask the right questions: While it is very engaging and easy-to-navigate does it actually help the industry reputation? Or is it a self-serving content strategy served up with good UX? Or more realistically, will patients appreciate the content but cherry-pick what they believe, or not — this is an established behavior when searching for drug information…cull from a dozen sources, weigh the results and synthesize an opinion.

Perhaps the real strategy here was not to enhance reputation or gain consumer trust, but to just add one more source/voice to the conversation. In this world of too much information, they have decided that to join the discussion with credible, easy-to-understand content, thus they gain a share-of-Influence, while still striving to raise their credibility.