Random Post

Sunday, June 7, 2020
no image

Smart appliances that can be controlled remotely and will let you know if there is a fault or other problem may not be worth paying extra for unless manufacturers commit to keeping software updated, Which? has warned.

The consumer group said that smart fridges, dishwashers and tumble dryers cost hundreds of pounds more than their conventional counterparts, but in some cases could be rendered obsolete after as little as two years. It surveyed major manufacturers about their plans to issue the software updates needed to keep the products working. It found the majority of manufacturers said they would offer updates for "the life of the product", but did not specify how long that was. Samsung told the organisation this was "a minimum of two years", while Beko said a maximum of 10 years. Other major firms did not give a specific time period when asked. BSH (which makes Bosch, Neff and Siemens appliances) said it would provide updates for the lifetime of the product. Only Miele was definitive, Which? said, stating it would provide 10 years of updates. Which? said the cost of smart items was much higher than standard products, with consumers paying an average of £855 more for a smart fridge-freezer, £259 more for a smart dishwasher and £190 more for a smart tumble dryer.  Typically dishwashers and washing machines last for 10 years before they are replaced due to faults or poor performance, while fridge-freezers and tumble dryers last for 11 years, it said.  Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk Without regular updates, smart items could lose functionality and security could be compromised, leaving the owner's network open to hackers. Many of the products will still work without their smart features, but not all. Which? said a new sales of goods directive from the EU would force manufacturers to state upfront how long products would be updated for, but it was not clear when this would be introduced in the UK, and it did not specify how long the period should be. Natalie Hitchins, the head of home products and services at Which?, said: "Until manufacturers are clear and upfront about how long they will support these products for, consumers could be better off avoiding smart appliances that might turn 'dumb' after only a few years and stick to more reliable and significantly cheaper non-smart alternatives." Topics Smart homes Consumer affairs Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Share on LinkedIn Share on Pinterest Share on WhatsApp Share on Messenger Reuse this content

7:41 PM

Smart appliances that can be controlled remotely and will let you know if there is a fault or other problem may not be worth paying extra...

Read more »
Saturday, June 6, 2020
no image

Most modern teenagers have a discreet, thumbed-aside corner of their smartphones where they stash away the apps they are most ashamed of using.

In 2018, this was where a 17-year-old US high school student called Dixie D'Amelio kept an odd little social media app called TikTok. From what Dixie could make of it, TikTok expected users to record and post ultra-short, ultra-energetic videos of themselves that were soundtracked with pre-made audio clips. Songs. Snatches of dialogue. Users danced to these clips or lip-synced along. They copied each other's moves and riffed on references and in-jokes that were starting to slosh around TikTok's expanding global network. More and more, Dixie enjoyed scrolling through the endless feed of hectic TikTok videos, but in private. She was a TikTok lurker and would never have dreamed of posting anything herself because, as she puts it: "Ew. People at school made fun of TikTok. It was looked down on. Embarrassing!" When she found out that her younger sister Charli, a talented dancer, had started posting videos on the app, Dixie was horrified. It would surely mean social death. "I was, like, Charli, dude, what are you doing?" Today, in the spring of 2020, TikTok has about 800 million active users around the world. ByteDance, the Beijing-based startup that created the app, was valued at around $75bn in 2018 and is now thought to be worth close to $100bn. TikTok has made global superstars of its most popular users, and when Dixie and Charli D'Amelio talk to me over video from their home in Connecticut, it is in their capacity as unquestioned TikTok royalty. They have 83 million followers between them, these sister queens of the app who, along with parents Marc and Heidi D'Amelio, now form TikTok's first family. TikTok's strategy of appealing to Gen Z's need for release, somewhere for them to not be Insta-perfect, was working How did Dixie go from being a TikTok refusenik to one of its best known faces? How did a Chinese app step in from the fringes to take such an awesome bite out of a social media market traditionally dominated by powerhouse Americans (Facebook, Twitter)? Dixie and Charli tell me their half of the story from their bedroom, speaking over each other in that fluent, seamless way of close siblings. They both have shoulder-length brown hair, freckles and the reedy physicality of young athletes. (Dixie is a former nationally ranked BMX racer and school track athlete; Charli started dance training for ever ago.) Having not so long ago rolled out of bed, the D'Amelios wear the bleary expressions of just-woken teens who will shortly need to go and forage for snacks. They paint their nails while we talk. "I remember Dixie was so embarrassed to have a sister on TikTok," Charli says. "And then in May 2019 – oh! I guess that was a year ago – all my friends started making TikToks. They asked me for help copying some of the dances. They said, 'Oh, you've got to teach us.' And I said, 'I don't want to, it's weird, I don't even have my own account.' But then I started making videos and I guess I started having a lot of… fun?" Dixie interrupts. "Do you remember when people first started recognising you? They would say, 'Where do I know you from?' And you would say…" "I would say 'social media'," Charli says. "Because I was embarrassed to say TikTok." Facebook Twitter Pinterest Charli, right, and Dixie D'Amelio. Photograph: Christopher Lane/The Guardian At the time, the app was attempting a delicate manoeuvre, trying to position itself as a place for teens and tweens to come to be silly, unashamed, unfiltered – a tonic to the earnestness of Instagram, the stress of Snapchat, the verbal warfare of Twitter. The app had been around in some form or another for years, first gathering momentum in 2016 after Twitter closed down its short-form video service Vine, leaving a small but exploitable hole in the social market. In summer 2018, it merged with the US lip-syncing app Musical.ly, increasing its reach, and by the end of that year it had crept to the top of Apple's US app charts. TikTok's strategy of appealing to Gen Z's need for release, somewhere for them to not be Insta-perfect, was working. It was adding tens of millions of new users every month; in January 2019, the influential technology blog TechCrunch published an editorial headlined "It's time to pay serious attention to TikTok" – advice that Facebook and Twitter, now hurriedly preparing copycat products, had been uncharacteristically slow to heed. When ByteDance celebrated the new year by projecting its TikTok logo on to the tallest building in the world, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, it was a statement of arrival. Charli's perky, precise dance videos caught on in 2019 and grew in popularity as TikTok did. It hadn't exactly become cool in her friend circle, Dixie explains, but few people would have thought of pretending they didn't use the app, or understand its references and in-jokes. TikTok culture had spilled over into the school corridors. What is that culture? You could think of it like YouTube (beauty how-tos, cartoony science experiments, impressive athletic feats, pets being cute, domestic accidents filmed by chance, monologues to camera, goofy lip-syncs, breathless dances), only on TikTok such videos have to be severely truncated in order to be uploaded. Users get 15 seconds to express themselves, and this brevity helps to create a staccato, no-explanations, absurdist flavour to much of the content. Comedy skits benefit from the tight edit, for instance. If some of the monologues are over-earnest, at least they don't run on too long. TikTok has made capsule celebrities of young magicians, fashion mavens, political campaigners. It has also elevated people to notoriety by accident (my favourite being a young woman known as The Motherfucking Tea Girl, after a rant of hers that went viral in 2019). We were out one night and noticed kids staring. We thought, there's no way they know Charli from that weird app As a TikTok novice, I didn't fully grasp its peculiar culture until I started thinking of the app as if it were my old playground at school. When I was a kid in the 90s, everyone had seen the same TV shows, listened to the same songs, had heard about the same laugh-out-loud acts of cheek against the teachers. To listen in on our playground conversation as an outsider (Simpsons references, Britpop lyrics, hyper-local gossip) would have been like hearing a gabbling alien language. But to be in the thick of it, getting it, was wonderful. So now I think of TikTok as one big secondary-school playground, with 800 million people crammed in. All babbling, all getting it. "Yes!" says Dixie, when I pitch her my comparison. It was more or less why she cracked and started posting videos herself, she explains. "Every conversation was about TikTok. 'Oh my God, Charli has 100,000 followers. Oh my God, she has 200,000.' I said, 'I'm done! If Charli hits 1 million followers, I'll start posting because I'm done being left out like this.'" Charli: "She never thought I was gonna hit one million followers." Dixie: "No." Charli: "And then I hit one million." Dixie: "Yeah." This was October 2019. The D'Amelio family celebrated Charli's milestone with a cake and Dixie kept up her end of the agreement, popping up in Charli's videos and then shooting her own knockabout solo efforts, fooling around in the family home. Dixie's presence supercharged both sisters' popularity. By now, their parents had accounts of their own, initially to keep an eye on the girls, but soon with millions of curious followers of their own. "We were kind of on autopilot as a family at the time," recalls Marc, who is 51 and works in sportswear. "Dixie was about to go to college. She was driving Charli to school in the mornings. Me and Heidi were kind of looking at the finish line of parenting." "Coasting," agrees Heidi, 48. "And then we were out to dinner one night and we noticed kids at the other table staring. We both thought, there's no way they know Charli from that weird app…" Before long, there were mobbings at the mall and at airports. Managers and marketers contacted the house, hoping the sisters would sign deals. Marc and Heidi first met in the 90s in New York, where Marc ran his sportswear business and Heidi was a model and personal trainer. They both had some experience at the crossover point of consumer and celebrity culture, but still – that their teenage daughters had become lucrative stars, in a matter of weeks and without leaving their bedrooms, was a bit of a surprise. Marc recalls: "We really thought we'd figured out how to have two kids. Then this was thrust on us. We had to regroup. Huddle together as a family and figure out all this new stuff." Facebook Twitter Pinterest Charli on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. Photograph: Getty Images In November 2019, Charli was invited to go on holiday with a collective of young TikTokers based in Los Angeles (the Hype House, a kind of 21st-century Mickey Mouse Club) and though the affiliation did not last, it was a move that helped nudge her further into the millions of followers. There were other, more random boosts to her popularity. Before Christmas, she copied a TikTok dance that was doing the rounds – the audio was the clip of a track by the rapper K Camp – and a lot of people gravitated to Charli's version. The video was watched more than 150m times, mostly by users trying to copy and perfect the dance. The suburban high school girl, still 15, suddenly had the market reach of a Knowles-Carter or a Kardashian. In early 2020, Charli was signed by the powerful Hollywood agency UTA, along with the rest of the D'Amelio family. By then, The Face magazine felt comfortable describing her as "the Pina Bausch of TikTok". In February, Dixie joined the cast of a YouTube drama made by the tween production company Brats and, meanwhile talks began about constructing a TV reality show around the entire family. In April, Charli was invited to dance for a national TV audience on The Jimmy Fallon Show, by which point she was the most-followed person on TikTok's platform. As Heidi describes this period: "Things. Went. Crazy." ***It's worth pausing here to consider a question often asked in the comment-threads under Charli's TikTok videos. Why her? What made this particular teenager's breezy, professionally dapper, but ultimately innocuous dance videos take off in such an enormous way? To properly understand a community and its whims, there's little point zeroing in on the gilded few who have risen to the top. They don't know. To understand Charli's mass appeal, I would need to speak to representatives of the masses, users who were stuck in the foothills of the app with tens or hundreds of followers and who nevertheless kept the network churning with content and comments and follows. Several of my teenage nieces and nephews are dogged TikTokers and after a quick call-out on the family WhatsApp group, I was able to assemble a brain trust of Charli obsessives who could answer any question about her. Why Charli, I ask? Niece #1: "She's funny. Upbeat." Nephew #1: "She's very smiley and positive." Niece #2: "A major thing with Charli is her age. The general TikTok audience is younger than on Facebook or Instagram, so the influencers need to be younger." Niece #3: "She's a good dancer." Niece #2: "Whenever we want to learn a dance, we'll look for Charli's video because she's so good, we think of hers as the best version to copy." Nephew #1: "Her having an older sister helps. They can do videos together." Niece #1: "They can do synchronised moves." Niece #2: "A lot of families across the world use TikTok and it's a bond people recognise." We're offered deals all the time that we turn down. Charli will not promote something she doesn't like When I ask the D'Amelio family the same question – why them? – Marc puts it down to luck. An app came along that prized a certain style of dancing (just this side of practised) and a certain style of personality (just this side of sarcastic) and Charli and Dixie happened to fit the mould. They benefited from "the lightning in a bottle effect", Marc says, of being relatable to a generation. Charli has long professed bafflement about her rise. TikTok, though noticeably friendlier in tone than most of its social media competitors, is by no means an online utopia. People can be cruel. Towards the end of last year, Charli had to post a captioned video in response to a common observation that her popularity did not make sense. "I don't understand [it] either," Charli wrote in the video, "but that's not my problem." This slightly flinty statement has softened over time into a kind of mantra for dealing with both the attention and the questions about whether she deserves it. "Don't worry," it now says on Charli's TikTok profile page, "I don't get the hype either." Dixie says: "I wish I could protect her a little bit more from the haters." I ask them how the worst of the negativity manifests itself. Comments? Direct messages? Actually, on TikTok it tends to be a little more roundabout than that. A popular collaborative feature on TikTok allows users to take a stranger's video and "duet" with it. (The original video appears on one half of a split-screen, the responding one on the other half.) Credited by some tech observers as a key innovation that helped TikTok create a sense of ongoing collaboration, "duets" are also a quick and easy vehicle for mockery. "You can't really avoid them," Dixie explains, adding that if you're the subject of someone's duet (well-intentioned or otherwise), that video is invariably pushed into your feed. "And I don't think people…" Charli finishes her sentence: "…understand that. They think you'll never see. But it's just not true." "Learning how to deal with hate," Dixie says, "that's the part we're still working on it. It gets very frustrating." As for the numbers, Charli says, "even 100,000 pairs of eyes is a lot. So it's been, since very early on, that the numbers stopped making sense to me. I try to think, 'I don't know how these people found me, and this is all crazy, and I'm just gonna keep doing what I'm doing.'" ***We break off the interview so Charli and Dixie can make some TikTok videos. Charli's creative process for this is not much of one at all. She scrolls through her "For You" page (a sort of welcome-to-the-app splash screen full of videos algorithmically generated for each user) and chooses an audio clip she likes. Otherwise, she thumbs through a list of saved, favourite clips that have caught her ear before and earmarked for possible use. Today it's a crunchy, low-quality recording of a couple of bars from a 2011 track by rapper J Cole called Work Out. For reasons of not looking as if you're trying too hard, another convention of TikTok is that the music clips often sound secondhand, slightly distorted, as if taxing the limits of a smartphone speaker. Charli hits the button that says "Use this sound" and she's ready to shoot. Now, and not before, she'll think about what to do. "There's no planning. The thing about making a TikTok is, whenever you're making it, that's when the ideas come." She props her smartphone against a water bottle in her bedroom and, with Dixie, films a brief dance. It ends in a comic tumble as Dixie collides with her sister and loses her balance. Good enough: the footage is edited down to seven seconds, ending on a smeared closeup of Dixie as she collapses forward towards the camera lens. "Upload." Dixie goes downstairs to make a solo video of herself dancing on the kitchen counter while Charli stays in her room and, choosing a clip of an old song by Drake, lip-syncs along. Her follower count has just ticked over 54 million, so she appends a comment: "THANK YOU GUYS SO SO MUCH FOR 54 MILLION!!!!" Meanwhile I track the progress of the J Cole dance that ended with Dixie falling over. It goes online in the early afternoon and by teatime it has been seen 4m times. Within a day the number is up past 20m. After a week it's 45m and still tick-tocking up, up, up. These are Adele numbers. Sports broadcast numbers. Facebook Twitter Pinterest The D'Amelios at home in Norfolk, Connecticut. Photograph: Christopher Lane/The Guardian "It is a business now, 100%," Marc tells me. "When kids have millions of followers, it's kind of hard to put the brakes on it. So, for lack of a better term, we've kind of decided to double down. We're seeing where all this goes." The sisters currently have a range of endorsement deals, including with a skincare company, though Marc stresses "we're offered deals all the time that we turn down. Charli will not promote something she doesn't like." Heidi adds: "I've seen her sit in a room full of executives and say no. I couldn't have done that at her age." TikTok as a service has been deliberately slow to monetise, creators ByteDance deploying the softly-softly startup strategy of growing a base of devotees before trying too obviously to sell them things. In spring 2019, early video ads were allowed on to the network. A few months later, a feature was added called Hashtag Challenges: sponsored marketing campaigns, by any other name, in which TikTokers push certain products. In February, the D'Amelios were involved in some hectic promotion of a Hashtag Challenge in aid of Jennifer Lopez's half-time performance at the Super Bowl. The family were flown to Miami, where Charli filmed a dance with Lopez. It probably says a lot about TikTok culture (and maybe older media's hesitant grasp of it) that some videos Charli made of herself dancing to a Sean Paul track in her Miami hotel bathroom got more eyeballs than the J-Lo collaboration. For now, at least, there's distrust in TikTok land of any stars who too brazenly sell out. On Charli's 16th birthday, the D'Amelio family recorded videos of themselves wearing matching Charli-branded hoodies in celebration. Marc put out a message directing fans to Charli's online shop where the hoodies were on sale ("today only"). I noticed, though, that he kept the salesmanship to his Twitter account, away from TikTok. In the same way the young users of the app seem to resist many of the aesthetics of the Instagram age (the D'Amelios will often make videos while wearing pimple cream, to the amazement of their mother), there's evidently a squeamishness about echoing the mistakes of older Insta-stars who will haphazardly sell followers anything – teabags, eScooters, obscure holiday destinations, whoever's paying. Heidi, trying to explain why Charli would face down a room full of advertising execs and refuse lucrative offers, gives a compelling reason: "Charli doesn't want to get crushed for it online. She doesn't want to be called out." ***One of Charli and Dixie's most popular TikToks, made in the days after our interview, lasts just four seconds. It's a compact, gnomic expression of Gen Z mores and tics – an initially inexplicable duet between the sisters and three strangers that takes me a good half an hour to decode when it pops up on my "For You" page. Here's what I think is happening in the video. A random TikToker, feeling sentimental, has a thought about Charli and decides to express it by filming themselves curled up in bed with a pensive look on their face. "I know for a fact," it says on an overlaid caption, "that Charli D'Amelio would wait for me to tie my shoe while everyone else kept walking." Another TikToker takes the prompt and "duets" with this video, adding the lightest touch of snark about too-good-to-be-true Charli. "I just know [she] would ask me if I was feeling OK after the rest of the group laughed at my self-deprecating joke." This goes on a bit, with more pensive expressions and more "I just know"s, until Dixie sees the video and gets involved. She videos herself curled up in bed and appends the caption: "I just know Charli D'Amelio." The coup comes from Charli herself, who breaks the chain of melancholy faces by filming herself clenching her fists, jiggling from side to side with a deadpan, shit-eating grin, under a caption that reads: "I Charli D'Amelio." The whole thing plays out, without explanation, to a looping clip of Kenny Loggins singing the 1984 soundtrack to Footloose. TikTok is the social media sensation of lockdown. Could I become its new star? Read more This is TikTok. The ad hoc collaboration between distant strangers. The tonal blend of earnestness and irony. The unbothered bed-head aesthetics and the incongruous soundtrack. Watching the video, trying to unravel it, gets me thinking about Gen Z as a whole – what a confused and sad world we're bequeathing them. We've thrust cameras in their faces for as long as they can remember, making them twitchily aware of their appearance from all angles. No wonder they have begun to congregate, away from all the stumbling grownups, in a place they can be silly, arch and sweet, and look a mess, and think at microprocessor speed – all in a format that registers as gibberish to outsiders. As Dixie explains, "If someone has never used TikTok before and they come on it, they'll have no idea what's going on. Things go viral and then disappear right away. It comes and goes, and comes and goes." "And that's why it's fun," Charli says. "You don't need to be on-your-best all the time. Things keep passing. There isn't some impossible thing you can be, that you're shooting for, that you have to maintain." Dixie: "Things can last one day and then nobody talks about them ever again. And that's… " Charli: "That's super-cool." Topics Family TikTok Social media Digital media features Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Share on LinkedIn Share on Pinterest Share on WhatsApp Share on Messenger Reuse this content

7:36 PM

Most modern teenagers have a discreet, thumbed-aside corner of their smartphones where they stash away the apps they are most ashamed of ...

Read more »
no image

Female journalists say they feel "violated" by a sexist forum that has been posting personal images and lewd comments about women in the Australian media industry for more than a decade.

Hundreds of high-profile journalists and emerging reporters have had their images uploaded onto the forum, which also posts suggestive images of Australian actresses, female sports stars and models.Photos lifted from female journalists' social media accounts show them exercising and socialising with friends, alongside objectifying comments such as "[it's] about time they changed the camera angle to show some leg" and "superb tits".While most images show women fully clothed, several topless images of one reporter, taken six years ago when she worked as a model, have also been posted on the site.ABC reporter Lily Mayers said she discovered photos of herself in a bikini on the forum that she'd posted on her private Instagram account while holidaying in Hawaii eight years ago. Mayers said the forum was a violation of privacy and had blurred the private lives of journalists with their carefully manicured, professional personas."I think it's kind of tricky not to slut-shame yourself in a way," she said."My first thought was 'I shouldn't have posted a photo of myself on the beach, I should have assumed this was going to happen'. But that made me think of consent, what women wear and what people perceive that to mean."Journalist Lily Cardis revealed on Twitter that an account connected to the forum had been following more than 1,000 female journalists, producers and hair and makeup artists on social media. She wrote the discovery had been made by her friend Sarah, who uses the Twitter handle @sezz62, who collated the followers of several female journalists into a spreadsheet, discovering they were all followed by the same account.As a direct result of their efforts, the account has since been blocked by more than 97 journalists, but the uploads haven't stopped.Guardian Australia has since identified five additional social media accounts and seven YouTube pages linked to users on the forum. These accounts follow predominantly female journalists and have a small number of followers and relatively few posts.YouTube pages connected to the forum have also lifted additional videos from women's social media accounts. One of these accounts boasts almost 25,000 subscribers and has attracted 20 million views since its inception in 2010.  Channel 10 journalist Antoinette Lattouf said the forum reinforced how careful women need to be online. Photograph: SuppliedA senior journalist at Network 10, Antoinette Lattouf, has also spotted several images of herself on the forum, including an Instagram story of her working out in her child's toy room during the pandemic. One particular image shows Lattouf covering the Martin Place terror attack in 2014. But rather than discussing the tragic events that were unfolding, users commented exclusively on her appearance and what she was wearing. Lattouf said the forum is another example of how the way a woman looks are "deemed as important if not more important than her skills [and] her intellect"."It plays into this 1950s view that women should be seen and not heard and that idea of keeping pretty for a male gaze."The forum itself has a following of more than 81,000 members, some of whom have been posting hourly on different versions of the site since the late 1990s.While the site began with users posting screenshots of women on television or scanning the pages of magazines, it has accelerated with the rise of social media.Both journalists said they've known about the forum for years but it was only recently that they were alerted to a suspicious account which they believe had been posting their images.Almost every female journalist has a story of being stalked and someone taking it too farLily MayersThe site's administrator told Guardian Australia he was from the Czech Republic and was the second administrator to run the forum. He said the site was now in its fourth edition.A former moderator of the site told Guardian Australia the forum was started to share nude images of actresses and models, but this has been vehemently denied by the site's administrators.The former moderator claimed the forum's "glory days" would see up to 100,000 viewers online at any given time, with 20 moderators controlling the site's content.According to one of the four current moderators of the site, the forum was created "to celebrate Australian celebs"."We have rules within the site. Any nudity is age-restricted and very minimal. You can't control what someone posts. People are there for different reasons." Short of blocking the accounts linked to the forum, Mayers feels "frustrated" that the anonymity of its users and the fact the images are now public means their chances of getting them removed are slim.Mayers said: "Legally these men may have not done anything wrong. Morally, obviously, it leaves you feeling violated."The admin of the forum told Guardian Australia that "anyone who has ever contacted us asking for pictures to be removed has been indulged … I think we are doing more than enough to protect everyone." But for Mayers, the site serves as an example of how women in the public eye are burdened with having to take extra measures just to keep themselves safe and their information private.She said a handful of her colleagues had been stalked in the past and had been forced to get the police involved."Almost every female journalist has a story of being stalked and someone taking it too far."As a result of receiving death threats and vicious trolling due to her work, Lattouf said she also makes a conscious effort to ensure that nothing posted is "incriminating and that it will be used against me and my kids"."For me it's unfortunately just reinforcing how careful women need to be. We've got to be extra careful on the streets and extra careful online."

7:36 PM

Female journalists say they feel "violated" by a sexist forum that has been posting personal images and lewd comments about women...

Read more »
no image

Watching the violent chaos night after night in the US, I keep thinking of what Benjamin Franklin said to the woman who asked him, as he emerged from the constitutional convention in 1787: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" To which he famously replied: "A republic, if you can keep it.

" What's happening on the streets there at the moment suggests that they could be coming close to losing it.When Trump was elected, I was assured by my American friends that the republic's democratic institutions, conventions and constitution were strong enough to rein in the narcissistic despot. Sure, it might be a rollercoaster ride, they conceded, but the republic would pull through. Well, if my transatlantic email is anything to go by, some of that cheery confidence seems to have evaporated.The thing that keeps my friends going, though, is the fact that Trump, despite his frantic, violent flailings, and despite his apparently rock-solid hold on a third of the electorate, is trailing Joe Biden in the polls. So, the thinking goes, if we all hold our nerve, the nightmare will end on 20 January 2021, when Trump has to hand over power to his victorious opponent.At which point my mind goes back to this time in 2016, when similar sentiments were the conventional wisdom about the chances of Trump defeating Hillary Clinton. And one of the most agonising questions in the aftermath of that election was: how could Nate Silver and co have got it so wrong?The answer is simple: nobody, including opinion pollsters, knew about the Trump campaign's astonishing mastery of social media, especially Facebook. Trump may not have known much about that at the time – he really only understood Twitter – but Brad Parscale and his team sure knew how to make use of Facebook's micro-targeting machine. And they did.Spool forward to now. Trump knows that if things continue as they are – with no party conventions or mass rallies and if the election is held in November (a sizable "if" IMHO) – then Biden will win. The only thing that could change that is – you guessed it! – Facebook.This thought is now informing everything he does. In particular, it explains his response to having his tweets labelled by Twitter by issuing a fatuous executive order (EO) threatening changes in Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. This is the clause that shields social media companies from legal liability for stuff that users post on their platforms. It's what underpins the business models of Twitter, Facebook and Google, among others.Legally, the executive order is a farce and may be unconstitutional. Most of the media thought it was aimed at Twitter but in fact, as the academic Zeynep Tufekci spotted immediately, its real target was Facebook, which has much more to lose if Section 230 were to be radically amended. And, as a warning shot, it worked a treat. No sooner had news of the EO emerged than who should turn up – on Fox News, Trump's favourite TV channel – than Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook boss, solemnly intoning his view "that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. Private companies probably shouldn't be… in the position of doing that."Evidence that the strategy of ensuring that Facebook was onboard for the Trump ride quickly emerged. When Trump, addressing "those THUGS" demonstrating in Minneapolis, tweeted "When the looting starts, the shooting starts", Twitter flagged the tweet as violating its policy against "glorifying violence". Over at Facebook, however, Mark Zuckerberg made a personal decision to leave the equivalent message up on Facebook.What it all comes down to is this: only one man – Mark Zuckerberg – now stands between Joe Biden and the US presidency. If he were to decide (and in these matters his controlling stake in Facebook means he is unchallengeable) that the company's famed micro-targeting engine were to be off-limits to both Trump and Biden and their various supporting organisations, then Trump's candidacy would be toast.He won't do it, of course, for the simple reason that there's a lot of money to be made from politics in the 150 days between now and the presidential election. And if Trump wins, Zuckerberg will have that – and its grisly aftermath – on what is laughingly called his conscience. But so too will a former deputy prime minister of the UK who happens to be his consigliere and was once, I believe, a liberal and a democrat. Makes one wonder, doesn't it, how Nick Clegg can sleep at night. What I've been readingTransport of delightIn a lovely New Yorker essay, Anthony Lane ponders the enduring romance of the night train. Conflict resolutionsIn a thoughtful piece in Foreign Policy, historian Nicholas Mulder predicts that the coronavirus "war economy" will change the world .Controlling interestIan Leslie writes in the New Statesman about learning from near-misses in the wake of Sars, Ebola and Mers

7:36 PM

Watching the violent chaos night after night in the US, I keep thinking of what Benjamin Franklin said to the woman who asked him, as he em...

Read more »
no image

Mark Zuckerberg has said Facebook will review its content policies after facing widespread backlash, including from its own employees, over the decision to leave up controversial posts from Donald Trump.

Facebook will look at improving content policies while also building products to advance racial justice, the CEO said on Friday in response to the protests in the United States."I know many of you think we should have labeled the President's posts in some way last week," Zuckerberg said in a lengthy Facebook post, referring to his decision not to remove inflammatory content by Trump containing the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts", which has racist origins and was censored by Twitter, a Facebook rival."We're going to review potential options for handling violating or partially-violating content aside from the binary leave-it-up or take-it-down decisions," Zuckerberg's statement continued."Our current policy is that if content is actually inciting violence, then the right mitigation is to take that content down – not let people continue seeing it behind a flag. There is no exception to this policy for politicians or newsworthiness. I think this policy is principled and reasonable, but I also respect a lot of the people who think there may be better alternatives, so I want to make sure we hear all those ideas. I started meeting with the team yesterday and we're continuing the discussion soon."Zuckerberg has faced significant backlash over the choice not to remove Trump's post this week amid nationwide protests over police brutality.Internal documents from Facebook show thousands of employees opposed the CEO's decision, the Washington Post reported on Friday. In response to growing unrest among employees, the tech CEO held an emergency town hall meeting this week, according to the Post, during which 5,500 workers voted on questions for him.The one that got the highest number of votes asked: "Can we please change our policies around political free speech? Fact checking and removal of hate speech shouldn't be exempt for politicians."Meanwhile, one internal message board at Facebook with hundreds of participants questioned whether the social media giant has an "abusive relationship" with the president, the Post reported.Criticism of Zuckerberg's content moderation decisions has come from former and current employees at all levels of the company, including senior staff.Also this week, nearly three dozen founding Facebook employees wrote an open letter to Zuckerberg opposing the decision to leave the post up. Current employees staged a virtual walkout, and the online therapy company Talkspace cut ties with Facebook over the issue.Facebook did not respond to request for comment. 

7:36 PM

Mark Zuckerberg has said Facebook will review its content policies after facing widespread backlash, including from its own employees, over...

Read more »
Friday, June 5, 2020
no image

For many people, running and music or podcasts go hand in hand – anything to make the sometimes plodding monotony pass a little quicker.

Bluetooth earphones have freed us from the tangle of wires. Link them to the right music-playing watch and you won't need your phone either. But which ones are up to the task? Anker Soundcore Spirit X 2019 Facebook Twitter Pinterest The Soundcore Spirit X are a great value set of Bluetooth exercise earbuds. Photograph: Anker RRP: £29.99 Exercise-ready water-resistant Bluetooth headphones don't come much cheaper than the Anker Soundcore Spirit X. Their IP68 water-resistance rating (1.5 metre water for 30 minutes) matches the best smartphones on the market and means they can be submerged in water, not just sweated on. This is ideal for surviving even the most arduous of workouts. The over-ear hook design ensures they stay in place, while a wire runs between the buds with a remote for volume and playback on one side. They come with three sets of wings that secure the earbuds in your ear too, plus five sizes of tips that go into your ear canal. They can connect to two devices simultaneously (such as your phone and running watch). They support the latest Bluetooth 5 standards and last up to 18 hours between charges via a microUSB cable. The sound won't blow you away and they don't block out noise very well, which has the added benefit of allowing for a little awareness while running, but they're better than you'd expect for the money. For those who don't want ear hooks, Anker's Soundcore Spirit are similar with just wings to hold them in place. Verdict: The fit won't suit everyone but plenty of tips, top water-resistance and 18 hours' battery are excellent for the money. Step up: Beats Powerbeats – much better sound, fit and fancy Apple features for £129.99. AfterShokz Aeropex Facebook Twitter Pinterest The AfterShokz Aeropex Bluetooth bone-conduction headphones allow you to listen to music or podcasts with full awareness as they don't block your ears at all. Photograph: AfterShokz RRP: £149.95 AfterShokz make bone-conduction headphones, which instead of having speakers that play sound into your ears, use a transducer to vibrate your skull just in front of your ears. The result is like being followed by a floating speaker as you can hear the music but everything else as well, for maximum awareness of your surroundings. The Aeropex are the latest Bluetooth pair, and are 30% smaller than previous efforts, only weigh 26g and are water resistant to IP67 standards (1 metre of water for 30 minutes). They loop over your ear and round the back of your head without touching your neck, gently squeezing your head just below your temples. They stay in place even when you are sprinting flat out, and are comfortable to wear for several hours at a time, including with wraparound sunglasses. They support the latest Bluetooth 5 standard, have playback and volume controls and last up to eight hours on a charge. A small magnetic USB cable charges the headphones in 1.5 hours. They sound surprisingly good with solid mids and highs but bone-conduction headphones lack any real bass. They are loud enough to hear in the wind and are some of the only headphones allowed in some races, due to their open-ear design. Verdict: Simply the best if you want maximum awareness and music or podcasts while running. Step down: AfterShokz Air – older, bigger and heavier but a third cheaper at £99.95. Jabra Elite Active 75t Facebook Twitter Pinterest The Jabra Elite Active 75t are an excellent set of true wireless earbuds that are water resistant and can play for up to 7.5 hours. Photograph: Jabra RRP: £189.99 If you want an excellent set of general true wireless earbuds that can hack it on a run too, the Jabra Elite Active 75t are some of the very best. The compact earbuds have a traditional silicone ear tip and stay put with a shape that twists and locks into place against the inside of your ear with a soft-touch coating for grip. Weighing 5.5g each, the earbuds are pretty small, light and comfortable with an IP57 water-resistance rating (1 metre of water for 30 minutes). They each have a single button with customisable single, double or triple presses. Hold the right to increase volume and the left to decrease volume. The battery lasts up to 7.5 hours between charges with power for another 20 hours in the compact case. A 15-minute trip in the case is enough for one hour of playback. The case takes two hours to charge via USB-C. They support the latest Bluetooth 5 standard and can connect to two devices at the same time. The best bit is the sound: real, thumping bass, good mids and highs, with full customisation available via an app. The earbuds block outside noise but have an ambient listening mode using the mics to give you some awareness if required. Verdict: Excellent everyday true wireless earbuds that can more than survive a run or workout. Side step: JayBird Vista – added silicone wings for a more secure fit but worse sound for £159.99. Beats Powerbeats Pro Facebook Twitter Pinterest The Powerbeats Pro are the best true-wireless earbuds for exercise with an unshakeable fit. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The Guardian RRP: £219.95 The Beats Powerbeats Pro are Apple's ultimate true-wireless workout headphones. They have the same seamless pairing, Siri and Bluetooth technology as the firm's excellent AirPods, but built into an over-ear-loop design with a silicone earbud tip. They are essentially the Powerbeats but without the cable. The headphones support Bluetooth 5, have an industry-leading nine hours of battery life, and a hard case that can charge the earbuds up to 1.5 times too for a total of 24 hours of playback. They are light and comfortable, with a mouldable ear hook for an unshakeably secure fit. The earbud tip offers reasonable isolation and the IPX4 water resistance rating means they're sweatproof. There is no wire to get caught or rub either. An excellent set of buttons, including playback and volume control on each earbud, compliment an excellent, punchy and energetic sound, which is pretty good for general listening, not just pounding the streets. Note that a recent update broke the volume buttons when used with Garmin running watches. Verdict: Unshakeable fit, great sound, long battery life and no wire, but only limited awareness. This article contains affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a reader clicks through and makes a purchase. All our journalism is independent and is in no way influenced by any advertiser or commercial initiative. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set. More information. Topics Headphones Sam's smart buys Bluetooth Apple Gadgets features Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Share on LinkedIn Share on Pinterest Share on WhatsApp Share on Messenger Reuse this content

6:31 PM

For many people, running and music or podcasts go hand in hand – anything to make the sometimes plodding monotony pass a little quicker. ...

Read more »
no image

I suppose, though I couldn't swear to it, families used to sit round the TV together and watch the same news.

Now we all get our news separately, me from Twitter, the kids from TikTok, my Mr from reputable radio and newspaper sources. It means we disregard each other totally. I honestly assumed the young ones know nothing except whatever can be conveyed about slime in 15 seconds or one minute (the two time options for a TikTok). Everything Mr Z says, I tend to have read 24 minutes before. For his part, every time he looks over I'm watching a video of a mischievous goat, or driver and a cyclist having an argument, which he takes as a sign that I've given up on the world. The riots in the US completely capsized all this: for the first two days, the 12s-and-under had a much more precise understanding of the whole thing, not just the details of George Floyd's death, but the searing rage around it and the likely scale of the protests. "He wasn't a stranger, he was a co-worker," they would explain patiently about the police officer videoed kneeling on Floyd's neck, in the hours when traditional news stories were still limited to the most pared-down accounts. This is the job of journalism, to report only what's been verified; I know that, I wouldn't have it otherwise. But the kids were picking up a different frequency, in which the truth was self-evident, and all this plodding, boomer fact-checking was just a way to dampen with delay a crime that could not be minimised. They had a point. Many reputable news sources have an illustrious history of under-reacting to injustice, and, cloaked in a duty of balance, believing any old bilge that corrupt authority feeds them. But that's not what's going on here, I said. It's not because the BBC is institutionally racist that it doesn't have a view on whether this is first, second or third-degree murder. How could I be sure, they wanted to know. I just am. I'm very old. Sometimes you know things when you're old. They looked at me as though that was the weakest argument ever, when in fact it is one of my strongest. And they were scathing when I showed them a video on Twitter of a black CNN reporter getting arrested on live TV. "Black people are getting arrested for no reason all the time," they told me. "It's not more important because it's a journalist." No, but, yes, but … it is. Part of living in a democratic society is being able to bear witness unmolested. "Everyone with a phone is bearing witness," one said, and I thought, sure, OK, if you absolutely insist.Then the conspiracy theories started – not on the BBC, by the way, and not on Twitter (or at least not in my bubble), but on TikTok, where all roads led back to Jeffrey Epstein. "Do you even know who Jeffrey Epstein is?" asked Mr Z, and they didn't as such, but they knew that he was a sex offender, and they knew for absolute certain that he had been killed by some other means than his own hand, by order of Donald Trump. "But how would a president take out a hit on someone? Every squeak that happens in the White House is recorded," the Mr pressed on. But this was the wrong argument. It's not the practicalities that give this rumour the heady whiff of manure, but rather the formulaic neatness, all predatory billionaries intimately connected, like cheap airport fiction. Trump is waging a war on his own soil. In broad daylight, his actions are fascistic in language, imagery and intent. We really don't need a complicated, secretive subplot to make him the bad guy.  That's the point of the conspiracy theory: someone, somewhere, floods the territory with unfalsifiable claims, and once nobody knows what's true, everything is contestable. The world has been painted a shade of moral murk, and after that, nobody is good, nobody is bad, everybody simply is. Yet new media do not arrange themselves, conveniently, into platforms that give access to conspiracies, and those that crack open injustices. It's one ecosystem, for real and fake. You cannot tell your children to ignore it all; you can only counsel judgment and scepticism. So it was on TikTok, again, that the offspring first heard about US citizens getting teargassed (though on Twitter, predictably, that I saw the Texan protest-on-horseback) and again, they were not just better informed but more politicised. On the back foot, I tried to share what I know of tear gas, this aspect that nobody ever mentions – it attacks not just your airways but anywhere with any moisture; so in great solidarity, protestors all hand round lemon wedges to squeeze into one another's eyes, and all the women are going: "Thank you so much, but can we prioritise my burning vagina?""You've never been teargassed," said the 10-year-old, with authority. "I have, actually, at the G8 protest in Genoa." "Genoa," said the 12-year-old, "is not a place."

6:31 PM

I suppose, though I couldn't swear to it, families used to sit round the TV together and watch the same news. Now we all get our news ...

Read more »
 
Google Analytics Alternative