Facebook shut down till emergency is lifted By Namini Wijedasa Social media giant says it will not allow hate speech or incitement to violence; ready to respond to situation View(s): View(s):

The temporary blockade of access to the social media site Facebook could remain in place till the State of Emergency lapses, authoritative sources said yesterday.

The Government had initially conveyed to Facebook that the suspension was in place for 72 hours, the sources said. However, it has gone on for longer. Presidential Secretary Austin Fernando, who is also chairman of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC), told the Sunday Times that he could not say when the blockade would be lifted and that it would depend on the situation.

Yesterday, a spokesman for the social media site based in India told the Sunday Times that they were “responding to the situation in Sri Lanka and are in contact with the Government and non-Governmental organisations to support efforts to identify and remove” hate speech and incitement to violence.

“The safety of our community is critical to us,” the spokesman said, in response to questions sent via email. “We have clear rules against hate speech or incitement to violence and work hard to keep it off our platform.”

But Facebook also said it was concerned “with the way access to the internet is being restricted and depriving people of important connections and expression. We hope that access will be restored soon”.

The New York Times quoted a spokesman from President Maithripala Sirisena’s office as saying that the Sri Lankan Government raised more than 100 items with Facebook. Harendra B Dassanayake, Director Research and International Media at President’s Office, could not immediately divulge to the Sunday Times what these items were but he said they comprised certain pages and profiles on Facebook, including sites administered by Mahason Balakaya and Asura Sena.

“A number of Facebook profiles and pages were reported as instigating violence and spreading hate speech and, in some cases, using the Facebook platform to organise crimes in real time,” Mr Dassanayake said. For instance, one man–who is now in custody–posted a video on YouTube of him walking around Kandy, urging people to gather around mosques as Muslims were plotting to attack Buddhist temples.

He called on them to destroy all the mosques if even a single temple was attacked. The clip was circulated via social media.

Hatred and incitement to violence was also spread via messaging apps like Whatsapp and Viber, he said. “There was a WhatsApp group called ‘Muslim Media’. It circulated voice clips with step-by-step instructions on how to manufacture petrol bombs, how to mix caustic soda, battery acid and flour to make an instant explosion,” Mr Dassanayake said.

Meanwhile, during a meeting President Maithripala Sirisena hosted with the diplomatic community this week, the US Ambassador asked when the social media blockade would end. The President replied that it would be lifted once the situation cleared. But the sources said it could go on till the State of Emergency was lifted. Access to messaging apps is likely to be granted earlier.

It became clear that a considerable amount of misinformation, spreading of racial hatred and incitement was taking place using social media platforms including, in particular, Facebook, and communication networks such as Viber and WhatsApp, a senior legal source said.

“Therefore, using Emergency Regulations that were promulgated on March 6, the Ministry of Defence requested the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) to take necessary steps to cause a temporary blockade of access to those sites and systems,” he explained. The TRC requested digital data service providers to carry out the blockade and close down the relevant ports through which access was being obtained by users.”

“The blockade will be lifted soon and, in any event, will lapse no sooner Emergency is lifted,” he said. The State of Emergency is valid for a maximum of 14 days after which it must be approved by Parliament.

The authorities felt that, with the suspension of access, “spreading of misinformation and incitement stopped” and that it “definitely had a positive impact on de-escalation of violence”.

“I think, empirically, it can be shown that barring access did help in bringing the situation under control,” the legal source said.

Some internet users started using proxy sites–virtual private networks (VPN)–to access social media. “That VPN applications provide a bypass is correct,” he accepted. “However, I am advised that even with VPN accessibility, access to the blocked sites have come down to about 10 percent of the previous load.

The Facebook spokesman said the company would remove content that violated its community standards when reported to it. “We carefully review each report and may consider things such as a person’s physical location in determining whether a threat is credible,” he explained.

“We are concerned with the way access to the internet is being restricted and depriving people of important connections, and we hope that access will be restored soon,” he added, providing a link to the negative economic impact of the internet shutdown. He also pointed to third party voices, such as the Committee to Protect Journalists Asia, that have publicly criticised the ban.

“That it did cause some degree of restriction to peaceful communication and expression of freedom of mind is correct,” the legal source contended. “However, on a balance, I am firmly of the view that the blockade was reasonable and justified, and certainly lawful.”</s>Facebook flirting: What men really get up to With one in five divorces in the UK citing little old Facebook as the reason their relationship ended we thought it was about time we looked at the facts about Facebook flirting. 

 

 What is he really up to on there? Who is he talking to? How much does he actually go on it? It's enough to make any normal girl go totally paranoia mental. 

 

 So we've asked a real life man - Thaddeus K Beaumont - to get a bit up close and personal with the issue and tell us what men are all about. 

 

 Find out what really goes on when he logs onto Facebook...

 

 What he really gets up to Facebook is brilliant. Unlike scores of people who love to slate it, saying it’s impersonal and non-essential, I am happy to admit it’s as much a part of my daily life as mealtimes and waiting ages for a bus. 

 

 Many a time have I fallen victim to the conundrum of being on Facebook and opening another window to check Facebook. It’s terrifying.

 

 Recently a statistic came out that says 1 in 5 divorces can be traced back to Facebook. At first, this seemed ludicrously high, but on reflection I’m actually surprised it’s not higher.

 

 Think about it. You’re unhappy in your marriage or relationship for whatever reason. In Facebook you have an online catalog of everyone you know, complete with information and photographs. Whether you like it or not, the likelihood is that you know someone you fancy and you have access to their profile. Even those in a happy marriage will find themselves being curious and sniffing around anybody from the next door neighbor to the your long lost uni flatmate. 

 

 When your relationship starts to lack a little love, you’ll be hard pressed not to take a glance and see what else is out there.

 

 Damien, 28 from Cambridge says: "Facebook is a social accelerator. In all situations, it makes communication easier and faster. Unfortunately that means that if you’re flirting with someone online, you’re able to do it more easily, in private without anyone knowing, and responding at a rate where in a couple of weeks you could have covered ground that in real life would take months of sneaking around!" So does this mean that in order to have a long and healthy relationship, you should be done with Facebook? Well, to a degree I think so. If a married man still goes to a meat market club, where the women are cheaper than the shots, he is far more likely to stray than if he stayed home and read a book. 

 

 In the same vein, if you’re able to see what lies outside of your marriage and entertain your crushes, then you are putting a strain on the relationship.

 

 But who is realistically going to give up Facebook for these reasons? We flirt harmlessly every day in real life, with a store clerk or a friendly face at the bus stop; it doesn’t automatically mean we’re going to cheat on our partners. Surely the pros of Facebook vastly outweigh the unlikely chance of ruining your relationship? So say we stick with Facebook, we'll need to be vigilant. We need Facebook code, if you will... Trying to imagine what this Facebook code might involve is tricky. Some people are more open than others and are happier to flirt knowing it means nothing. Others; not so much.

 

 It would seem the individual has to set the bar to what is and is not allowed. I would say contacting girls you don’t immediately know, yet think are good looking is a pretty clear cut no. If they contact you, keep things short and polite. 

 

 Private messages should be treated with extreme caution. 

 

 But I’ve met some of my best girl friends through innocent flirting; does this mean I am never to make friends with a member of the opposite sex ever again?

 

 Terry, 26, from London says: "One of my old girlfriends knew I’d met some girls at a house party and got on well with them. We became friends on Facebook and started chatting, and this made my girlfriend very uncomfortable. I knew I wasn’t trying to scout for new talent, but to make her feel better I stopped responding to messages. Now that we’ve split up I think that was stupid, as I missed out on making new friends.

 

 If I could go back in time and be friends with them, would I? One hundred percent.

 

 My heart was in the right place and if she has a problem with me having girl friends then that is her problem, but something I’d be happy to help her with."

 

 Denying oneself the opportunity to talk to new girls seems an awfully tragic step and one we should use only if a man is entirely untrustworthy. Perhaps it might be better to examine why these divorces through facebook are happening in the first place?

 

 Is it not entirely plausible that two people grow apart, yet through increased social interaction through Facebook they meet a person they are happier with? Is that not important that they follow their hearts? Of course, leaving your wife of 12 years for a brief romp with someone you hardly know is an outrageous idea. 

 

 But if after months of messaging and trying (and failing) to make your marriage work, can you say it is so wrong to take a calculated step towards finding love again? To flirt or not to flirt In summary, writing as a boy user of Facebook with a long-term girlfriend: I do use Facebook to flirt. But not to cheat on my girlfriend. 

 

 Flirting is a part of life and cutting it out entirely would be depriving oneself of one of life’s simple pleasures. I would not want my girlfriend to stop lightly flirting with boys and I don’t feel guilty for making the occasional cheeky comment. 

 

 In the rare circumstances that a girl has messaged me something a little less innocent, I have made light of it and highlighted the existence of said girlfriend. 

 

 And I have never cheated on my girlfriend, regardless of how often I use Facebook.

 

 One thing that might be of use to people who are in a relationship but are flirting wildly with someone online, is to remember that people are different to how they portray themselves through Facebook. They can edit their pictures, change their interests and check what they write before they send it. So no matter how much you think you know someone over the internet, holding that character against your loving girlfriend is a foolish thing to do. 

 

 If your fella gets his head mixed up with an online friend, it could be time to implement your own Facebook code of conduct. 

 

 Do you flirt on facebook?</s>Updated at 8:30 p.m.: to correct that DST has no funding from the Russian government.

As reported earlier, Facebook is taking a $200 million round of funding from Digital Sky Technologies, a Russian investment company. While Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a conference call Tuesday morning that Facebook revenue numbers were up, that the company was growing, and that Facebook was, "on track to creating a nice, self-sustaining business," he explained that at Facebook, "we're open to interesting offers."

With many companies wanting to invest in Facebook, what made the DST offer so interesting?

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told me that Facebook was "not actively seeking investments." DST input will be key to Facebook's Eastern European business growth, though. "This is an investment with a strategic partner. We're excited for the learnings," she said.

But a source familiar with DST laid it out for me a bit differently: if Facebook wants to be successful in Russia, DST can bring a lot to the table besides knowledge. DST is close to the government there, the source said, and while outright involvement (or obstruction) from the Russian government is highly unlikely, if Facebook wants its business to go more smoothly, DST can help.

For example, should Facebook want to hire Russians, a connected investor like DST could help. DST influence could be even more important if Facebook wanted to acquire companies in the region.

DST's Alexander Tamas told me his company is private and does not have many interactions with the government. There is no government funding in DST. Still, our source says that DST's connections to the government, subtle though they may be, are important because the Russian market is not friendly to outsiders. "It's a market where you want a partner," I was told.

DST's investment gives it no power over Facebook in the United States, and reportedly no control of the company nor access to U.S. customer data. But through this arrangement, Facebook will likely have an easier time growing its market share in Russia, of obvious benefit to its new investor.

A strong Russian Facebook will also force a competitive evolution of other Eastern European social sites. Tamas says that DST has more than a dozen social network investments, including the top three social sites in the region in terms of traffic (Forticom, VKontakte.ru, and Mail.ru). These sites, and others in the DST portfolio, compete with each other to an extent, and DST is fine with this. "We don't interfere with operations," Tamas says. This arrangement is in stark contrast to many U.S. venture funds, where investors and entrepreneurs expect that the funders' full attention will be on growing their portfolio company businesses. U.S. VCs often make sure their potential portfolio companies are, if anything, potentially cooperative before they invest, and will not take on companies competing for a market they are already in.

However, when your portfolio controls 70 percent of your market, as Tamas says DST's does (the market being the Russian-speaking Internet), there is no avoiding the competition. Adding Facebook to that stable will give DST an even more commanding position on the Russian social nets, even if Facebook itself will become just one of the region's big social sites.

DST's leadership position also creates an opportunity for DST to create a region-wide advertising network for these social sites, but Tamas said there are no plans to create an advertising network across the DST sites, "at this stage."

Facebook's Sandberg says that the approach of taking regional investors is not new to Facebook; Hong Kong's Li Ka-shing sunk $60 million into the company in 2007.

See also: Kara Swisher interviews Sandberg and Alexander.</s>When Facebook added a slew of retail partners to its Gifts product last week -- complete with a splashy party at FAO Schwartz in New York -- some observers got excited about the social network's ongoing march into e-commerce, even claiming (incorrectly, I would argue) that this helped push the stock up more than 6 percent on Friday.

Facebook's decision allowing users to buy and send physical gifts is a shrewd move that could potentially grow into a $1 billion business (more on that in a moment). For now, however, the play seems less about boosting the bottom line and more about helping Facebook's broader goals -- namely, keeping people on Facebook a whole lot longer and getting more out of them.

Facebook wants to be the Internet

 The raw numbers are astounding: Facebook has more than 1 billion monthly users. But what's most important is how much time those same users stay on Facebook. Indeed, during an interview at the Techonomy conference, product manager Sam Lessin stressed that engagement has "never been higher globally." But when asked whether that was true among U.S. users, he dodged the question. "It's true globally," Lessin said.

Adding Gifts, which is for now available for U.S. users only, is one more way to keep people from bolting. If you see it's a friend's birthday or that a friend got engaged, why not let people send the gift without leaving Facebook's walls? "Facebook's overarching goal is to keep you there," said Michael Pachter, an analyst with Wedbush Securities. "I don't think their goal is to profit from this business. They just don't want me leaving the site." Eventually, he said, talking about a decade out, "They want to be the destination for everything."

It's still about the ads, which means your data

 Facebook's on track to report more than $5 billion in revenue for 2012, but the vast majority (roughly 85 percent) of that will come from ads. And that's unlikely to change anytime soon, even as Wall Street would love to see a more diverse revenue stream. But here, too, Pachter suggests that Gifts helps. When you buy your friend a gift, you're giving Facebook information about yourself and your friend. Suddenly, the person who received a subscription to Bon Appetit could see cooking-related ads. It's all part of Facebook's effort to sell the most targeted ads on the Internet -- for now that means on Facebook, but potentially it could extend across sites everywhere on the Internet.

Credit card, please

 To date, the main way Facebook has gotten its users' credit cards on files has been from people who play games by Zynga and others and buy virtual goods. How many credit cards does Facebook have? It hasn't said, but Pachter figures it's about 10 million to 15 million. As people buy gifts on Facebook, he expects that will double over the next year or so.

Getting your credit card on file is a big deal, especially as more and more Facebook users bypass the desktop in favor of mobile. Gifts, for instance, grew out of Facebook's acquisition of Karma, a mobile social gifting company. While it's easy to imagine people sending a gift through Facebook from their mobile phone, it's also easy to imagine a lot of people giving up when it comes time to enter their credit card numbers. Ultimately, Facebook needs an Amazon one-click type experience.

More broadly, having people's credit cards (plus their email addresses) opens up a world of opportunities, potentially helping Facebook take on iTunes and Google Play by adding the power of social. "If I see a friend is listening to a song on Spotify," said Pachter, "I should be able to listen to that song and hit purchase."

It goes beyond songs, of course, so long as Facebook has your credit card on file. Think of it this way: Impulse purchases add up when you have a billion users.

So how big could Gifts get?

 When you buy a gift from one of Facebook's more than 100 partners -- including BabyGap, Brookstone, and Dean & Deluca -- Facebook acts as the middle man, although in a far deeper way than that term implies. Facebook has a team that works with each merchant and, using data from behavior on Facebook, decides which products will work best, said Lee Linden, the head of Facebook Gifts. So when Facebook suggests gifts for you to give a woman with kids in New York, the selections will be different than if it's for a single guy friend in Austin, Texas. "Over time, we'll get better and better at making recommendations," said Linden.

Facebook began rolling out Facebook Gifts in late September and so far, he said, the average gift sent is $25. Linden won't say what cut Facebook is taking, although it varies with each partner.

In short, Facebook Gifts is far more complex than, say, an affiliate program that simply directs customers to a merchant. For now, Linden is only saying that the Gift service is available for "tens of millions of users" in the U.S., and that he's working to bring it to more in the coming weeks. (You'd think the company would have aimed for all U.S. users for the holidays). After that, presumably, it goes global.

I did some back-of-the-envelop math with Pachter to make some guesses on the potential once it's fully rolled out to U.S. users. Let's say about 5 percent of the 170 million or so U.S. members send gifts that amount to $50 per use per year. That would add up to a run rate of about $450 million for its first full year -- a figure Pachter expects could more than double eventually by pushing out Gifts globally and beefing up the offerings, bringing it to close to a $1 billion run rate. Even so, he figures the margins aren't high -- probably around 15 percent on average, compared with margins of 70 percent for the ad business.

That's hardly terrible, of course. And Facebook needs revenue where it can get it, especially as the stock, which today closed just below $23, still trades far below its IPO price of $38. But the bigger value will likely come from all these other benefits that Facebook gets by having you shop, send Gifts and, above all, share.

Updated at 4:58 p.m. PT to include comments from Lee Linden, who runs Facebook Gifts.</s>Facebook Home now available in Google Play, US-only right now

Facebook Home now available in Google Play, US-only right now

As promised, Facebook has released Facebook Home in Google Play Store just now. Currently supported only on select devices, Facebook Home can be downloaded from here. As, it is rolling-out slowly, it might take some time to appear on your phone.

Update: Turns out Facebook Home is only available in United States at launch, as Facebook notes in the help documentation of Facebook Home.

According to Facebook, Facebook Home is compatible with HTC One X, HTC One X+, Samsung GALAXY S III and Samsung GALAXY Note II, and more devices will be added in the upcoming weeks.

Facebook Book is a home-screen replacement application or in simpler words ‘a launcher’ for your Android phone. It replaces your existing launcher – whether it is HTC Sense or Samsung Touchwiz – with a Facebook-centric UI.

Facebook Home includes some key features like Cover Feed, Chat Heads, Notifications and App launcher.

Here is how Facebook describes each section of Facebook Home:
• Cover feed: Glance at your phone for photos and posts from your Facebook News Feed.
• Chat heads: Send and receive texts and Facebook messages in one place. Open, close and drag chat heads around your screen to keep chatting while you’re using other apps.
• Notifications: See news as it happens with bigger, bolder notifications on your home screen.
• App launcher: Get right to your favorite apps and post to Facebook from the same place.

How to get Facebook Home?

Similar to any other Android app, Facebook Home is available in Google Play. If you are using the latest version of Official Facebook app (which is also a requirement for Facebook Home), the app will notify you about the availability of Facebook Home and if you want you can install it. You will also need the latest version of Facebook Messenger app on your Android phone to run Facebook Home.

Or, you can directly go to Google Play and download Facebook Home on your Android phone.

After you have installed Facebook Home on your phone, the next time you will press “Home” button on your phone, Android will ask whether you want to use Facebook Home or your existing launcher. you can choose Facebook Home and start using it.

Why can’t I install Facebook Home on my Android phone/ tablet?

Probably because it is not currently supported for your phone and as far as tablets are concerned – the tablet-specific version of Facebook Home will be released in the coming months.

Are there any Android phones that will come with Facebook Home pre-installed?

Yes, HTC is launching its HTC First Android phone with Facebook Home today in United States. It will later be released in France and UK, there is currently no word on the launch in other regions. Sony, Samsung, Huawei and a bunch of other companies are also reportedly working on Facebook Home devices.

If you have installed Facebook Home on your Android phone, do let us know about the experience in comments.</s>Facebook has announced a ton of new features today during its F8 conference. The first feature rolled out is called Timeline. While it's not currently available to most Facebook users, you can sign up, making your account eligible to receive the new feature earlier than most.

Timeline shows off your Facebook content in a brand-new way, and we have to say, it looks really interesting. Once available, users will interact with content in a completely new way on Facebook.

In order to get early access to the new feature, you will need to visit the Timeline page on Facebook, log in to your Facebook account, and click on the Sign Me Up button on the bottom right of the screen.

After you have clicked on the Sign Me Up button, your account is eligible for the Timeline feature once it begins rolling out. Facebook usually announces a new feature and slowly rolls it out over the coming days and weeks, giving priority access to those who have taken the time to indicate they want to use the new feature.</s>It’s long past time for the biggest internet companies to pull their weight in society. Trembling startups not long ago, the global technology superelite have amassed the effective power of major nation-states, but without accountability, responsibility for their public influence, transparency, checks and balances or even awareness that they might be a problem rather than a solution. Focus on Facebook and Google, plus Twitter. They are radically unregulated. They hold our most intimate personal information. They have destabilized traditional, fact-based journalism. They have vast wealth ― a combined market value of $1.2 trillion ― and the power that accompanies it. In Washington and other capitals, they lobby hard for their self-interests, often against ours. And during an era when even the National Security Agency gets hacked, they have created data stores that could fundamentally threaten our democracy and others.

The internet’s aristocracy arose with the commercialization of the web, starting 20 years ago. To the hectic leaders of Silicon Valley, two decades seems like geologic time – but in the evolving social and political cultures of our species, two decades is the blink of an eye. We haven’t yet absorbed the implications of these potent, purposefully disruptive technologies. We’re addicted to smartphones. We’ve lost control of much of our personal data. The corporate and governmental entities that so voraciously collect our secrets seem indifferent to their protection. Our biometrics will be hacked. Baseless accusations of “fake” corrode the foundations of our civilization.

In December, Facebook posted a response to the question: “Is spending time on social media bad for us?” Among the studies reaching that conclusion is one published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, stating: “Our results showed that overall, the use of Facebook was negatively associated with well-being... The negative associations of Facebook use were comparable to or greater in magnitude than the positive impact of offline interactions, which suggests a possible tradeoff between offline and online relationships.” Such are the unintended, faintly understood consequences of commercialized internet technology.

Imagine that back in the 1950s, the U.S. Postal Service opened every letter and recorded its contents, while the phone company taped every call. What’s happening now is like that. Back then, though, no one had the computing power, digital storage capacity, or algorithms to make sense of so much data. Now it’s easy. And folks then would have raised hell if the post office or Ma Bell had invaded their privacy; now we give our privacy away. That has enabled a tiny group of companies to establish themselves as hosts of much of our public discourse, by accumulating and exploiting data better than the competition.

Unlike businesses that make money principally by selling things, Facebook, Google and Twitter offer services for “free.” In business, “free” almost always is a lie. As an executive taught me ages ago, “If you are not paying for a service, you are what’s being sold.” In exchange for their services, many free-model companies spy on us — memorizing our data, noting our interests, often capturing our keystrokes and following us wherever we venture online. Then they exploit us, by selling advertising individually targeted to us and others, to anyone with a dollar or a ruble. With data on at least two billion users each, Facebook and Google consume consumers the way whales eat krill. According to research firm eMarketer, the two companies together control 60 percent of digital advertising in the U.S.

Companies selling digital ads rely on two sources of value: data on individuals and engagement. The more time we spend on Facebook, the more engaged we are, the more ads we see, and the more valuable those ads become. That’s the essence of Facebook’s business. “The thought process that went into building these applications... was all about: ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?’” Sean Parker, Facebook’s first president, recently recalled. “And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while... You’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology. The inventors… understood this consciously. And we did it anyway.”

In this context, Facebook emerges as public enemy number one. It’s by far the biggest social network, 35 times bigger than Twitter. Google purveys such invasive offerings as Gmail, Google Docs, and Google Home. Nevertheless, core Google offerings such as search and maps are grounded in actual reality. Thus, while Facebook’s vulnerability to malicious abuse is bone-deep, deriving from the algorithms that made it successful, Google has a compelling economic interest in what might be called objective truth. “We came from ... a more naive position,” says Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google’s parent company. “But now, faced with the data and what we’ve seen from Russia in 2016 and with other actors around the world, we have to act.”

No such considerations may inhibit Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook’s CEO shows every sign of being in denial. At the Techonomy conference two days after Trump’s victory, Zuckerberg called the idea of Facebook influence on the election “crazy.” When Facebook, Google, and Twitter were called before Congress to testify about Russian meddling in the election, none of their CEOs showed up. Zuckerberg went to Beijing instead, paying homage to China’s Xi Jinping. The fifth-wealthiest person on the planet, and a tireless promoter said to harbor presidential ambitions, Zuckerberg structured even his putative philanthropy, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, as a for-profit LLC that’s free to invest in lobbying. Perhaps disingenuously, he framed Russian interference as a security problem, rather than as a feature of Facebook’s core business. “We’re serious about preventing abuse on our platforms. We’re investing so much in security that it will impact our profitability,” Zuckerberg said. “Protecting our community is more important than maximizing our profits.”

McNamee reports that, in 2016, he emailed a friendly warning to Zuckerberg and Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg. He documented seven instances of bad actors abusing Facebook to harm powerless people, “Jim Crow stuff,” he says now. “I hoped they’d take a look.” After waiting four months, a period that included Trump’s election, McNamee began publicly airing his concerns. “They treated it as a PR problem,” he recalls. “They never took it seriously. And now they are lobbying like crazy to protect themselves.” (Facebook has announced the belated implementation of one of McNamee’s suggestions: informing users of their contacts with Russian agents.)

Chamath Palihapitiya, formerly Facebook’s head of user growth, told an audience at Stanford University last month, “Even though we feigned this whole line of, like, ‘There probably aren’t any really bad unintended consequences,’ I think in the back, deep, deep recesses of our minds, we kind of knew something bad could happen,” he said. “We have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works.” Facebook’s PR apparatus lashed back, “Chamath has not been at Facebook for over six years. When Chamath was at Facebook we were focused on building new social media experiences and growing Facebook around the world. Facebook was a very different company back then and as we have grown we have realised how our responsibilities have grown too. We take our role very seriously and we are working hard to improve.”

Now, if ever, is the time for CEOs, writers of algorithms and other architects of our future to take responsibility – before, crippled by self-interest, they irreparably harm us all. Artificial intelligence looms, ominous and unknowable as a Kubrick monolith. AI, like any complex digital product, is a mysterious black box guided, but not illuminated, by data and algorithms. Once set in motion, AIs make decisions that even their makers cannot fathom, much as a major airline today doesn’t know precisely how its computers priced a seat. It may not be long before AIs shape the fates of our species and our planet.</s>Facebook inflates users’ advertisement reach on its platform, says Pivotal Research Group Analyst

Facebook inflates users’ advertisement reach on its platform, says Pivotal Research Group Analyst.

 Photo: Twitter

Facebook inflates users’ advertisement reach on its platform, says Pivotal Research Group Analyst.

 Photo: Twitter</s>Both technology reporters and Facebook users, however, saw a humorous side to the story.

“Why Is Facebook Saying I’m Dead?” asked the New York Times’ Katie Rogers. “At first, I was indignant. I was definitely not dead. (Was I? It had been a long week.)”

“Facebook is capping one of the longest weeks in American history by telling everyone that they are dead,” quipped The Verge, a technology website, in reference to the presidential election.

The memorial feature was introduced by Facebook in 2015 after a number of high-profile cases where family wanted to access the social accounts of deceased loved ones.

User can opt to have their account turn into a memorial page upon their death, where Facebook contacts can leave message and share memories.

An alternative option is to have your account deleted after your death.</s>Facebook really wants to gain the trust of publishers after a contentious year of fake news and algorithm changes, as well as concerns the giant social network is squeezing out news sites.

At a panel discussion at the SXSW conference, Facebook's head of news product, Alex Hardiman, said Facebook is "redefining its relationship" with publishers. The company is experimenting with new products and services to better serve news organizations and promote accurate journalism, she said.

"As we are making the shift to quality, everything is on the table," Hardiman said on Friday. "We're having active conversations with a lot publishers, academics, and experts in the space."

Hardiman said Facebook (FB) wants to "minimize the bad" and "promote quality" so News Feed users see reliable information.

Subscribe to Pacific, our newsletter on the innovation economy

She fielded some criticism from CNN's Brian Stelter, who said at times it feels like Facebook doesn't really understand the news business. People in the audience — many of whom were journalists — cheered when Stelter raised the prospect of Facebook paying more directly for journalism.

Hardiman denied that its recent algorithm shifts are solely responsible for driving publishers out of business.

Digital publisher LittleThings shut down at the end of February and cited Facebook's algorithm changes as a main cause of its closure. Hardiman said publishers who blame Facebook for their issues are likely "abusing the system" in other ways.

Echoing statements made last month by Campbell Brown, Facebook's head of news partnerships, Hardiman said Facebook's role is to be more explicit about amplifying high quality news on the platform. It was notable that Hardiman appeared at the conference. Facebook is often criticized for having a closed-off approach, but in recent months, top executives have publicly spoken about Facebook's changing relationship with publishers.

Related: Facebook users are spending less time on the site

"For us, we historically within Facebook did not distinguish between different types of news, and that was problematic," Hardiman said. "Flattening the news meant you couldn't always tell the difference between something that was trusted and credible, versus something fraudulent."

Facebook has tweaked its algorithm to display more content in the News Feed from friends and family instead of news organizations. However, its tweaks have caused people to use Facebook less. Hardiman said on Friday its changes are an early step on a journey.

Part of redefining its relationships with news publishers may come in the form of financial support. Facebook has gobbled up large portions of digital ad revenue previously spent on news publishers, and many publishers changed their distribution models to Facebook in an effort to reach the platform's two billion users. Hardiman said Facebook is helping news organizations find sustainable business models, including investing $3 million in a publication accelerator program.

As Stelter noted, $3 million is a tiny fraction of Facebook's revenue. The company hit $13 billion in sales for the fourth quarter of 2017.

When asked about the looming midterm elections, and the potential for viral misinformation, Hardiman said "We've got our work cut out for us," but "we're making good progress."

Some of the company's actions are seen by skeptics as an attempt to avert government regulation.

Earlier this week, Facebook expanded its relationship with the Associated Press, one of the world's biggest news organizations, to fact-check political claims in all 50 states.

Facebook is still on the offensive after revelations that people had abused its platform to share disinformation and propaganda. In 2016, Russian trolls used Facebook to sow discord in the United States via fake news and viral memes. The social network is facing questions from Congress and users about whether the social network is doing enough, and whether it should be regulated.
The suspension of Facebook remains in place until the riots end.