Great Britain: As an EU citizen suddenly illegal in Europe

An last May 3rd, a new chapter was to begin for Maria *. At 6 p.m., the Spaniard from Valencia landed on London Gatwick Airport. The 25-year-old recently graduated with a degree in criminology. Now the young woman in London wanted to earn money as a waitress, “and then look for a real job in my field”.

Since January 1, 2021, however, EU citizens need a work visa if they want to take up a new job in the UK. A regulation that Maria knew nothing about. Instead of looking for a job in London, she ended up in a deportation prison.


Facebook and Gmail lead the list of apps on iOS that collect the most data

The App Store, the official platform for applications within the iOS ecosystem of Apple, made recent changes to its transparency. This affects how developers collect user data, and in a recent report, Gmail Y Facebook, have appeared as some of the apps that request more information.


what happened on a day like today

Like every day, these are some of the relevant events that happened on this same date but a few years ago. Find out what it is about

On May 14, 1984, in White Plains, United States, the programmer and creator of the social network Facebook was born. Mark Elliot Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg is currently one of the youngest people to appear on Forbes magazine’s annual list of billionaires.

For the development of Facebook, Zuckerberg He had the support of his Harvard colleagues, the computer science coordinator, and his roommates: Eduardo Saverin, Dustin Moskovitz y Chris Hughes.

In 2010, “Time” magazine chose Mark Zuckerberg as the “Character of the Year”.

On October 1, 2010, the film “The Social Network” directed by David Fincher was released, which tells the story of how Zuckerberg created his social network. On May 19, 2012, he married Priscilla Chan of Chinese descent.

What’s more…

On May 14, 1944, the filmmaker and creator of the film saga was born in California, United States Star Wars e Indiana Jones George Walton Lucas Jr.

During the years 1973 and 1974 he devoted himself exclusively to writing the screenplay for the film “The Star Wars“To write this script was inspired by the” Flash Gordon “and the movie” Planet of the Apes. ”

He adopted two girls and a boy: Amanda Lucas (1981), Katie Lucas (1988) and Jett. Lucas (1993).

15 facts about George Lucas, whose pet was a great inspiration

His latest project was finishing the new Star Wars trilogy. “The threat of the ghost“Episode I which was released on May 19, 1999.

In May 2002 the second part was released, “Attack of the clones“, episode II and”Revenge of the Sith“, episode III, (which opens the doors to the classic trilogy), premiered on May 19, 2005, leaving the saga finished.

On October 30, 2012 George Lucas sold Lucasfilm for $ 4,050 million to Disney and this confirms that there will be a third Star Wars trilogy that will begin in 2015 and will consist of episodes VII, VIII and IX.


Facebook, Trump and the Liars – Opinion – 05/14/2021

Exclusive content

The note you are trying to access is exclusively for subscribers

Subscribe me

Know our plans
and enjoy El País without limits.

Pay in

If you are already a subscriber you can
enter with your username and password.

Like many other journalists, it is not easy for me to support Facebook’s decision to extend its suspension to former President Donald Trump for another six months.

But Facebook made the right decision. In fact, I should have suspended him indefinitely, and done it with other great liars around the world as well.

First of all, Facebook is a private company whose users agree to its terms and conditions. So this has nothing to do with state censorship. Trump agreed to Facebook’s rules when he joined the platform, and if you don’t like their decision to suspend it, you can go to many other social networks to spread his crazy conspiracy theories.

Facebook’s Independent Advisory Council, made up of prestigious jurists and human rights activists, ruled on May 5 that the company had done well to suspend Trump for his incitement to violence against a democratically elected government during the Capitol takeover on 6 January, which left five dead. In his speech that day, Trump urged the crowd to “walk to the Capitol” and said that “if you don’t fight” you “are going to be left without a country.”

Third, Facebook, the world’s largest news platform, cannot be allowed to poison democracies with fake news to expand their audiences and increase their profits. Mark Zuckerberg has done it for years, before a wave of criticism forced him to create the Independent Advisory Council in 2018.

Facebook cannot shirk its responsibility to spend more money on fact-checkers and lawyers to check the information it disseminates. Just as freedom of the press does not allow defamation, nor does it allow inciting violence or subverting the democratic order.

The ruling by Facebook’s Independent Advisory Council was not perfect. Among other things, he decided to reverse the final decision in the case to Zuckerberg, asking him to make a final decision on Trump’s suspension within six months. That’s dangerous, considering that Zuckerberg has a financial stake in getting Trump’s 35 million followers on Facebook back on his platform.

If Zuckerberg allows Trump to return in six months and continue to spread the ridiculous lie that he won the 2020 election and incite his supporters to break the rule of law, America’s already fragile democracy will be in even more danger.

Let us remember that the Supreme Court of the United States, with a conservative majority; Mike Pence himself, Trump’s former vice president; and top Trump administration officials, including his FBI director, are among those who determined that Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

But Facebook should do much more. It should end its current rule that public figures and presidents can spread false information because it is “news fact,” while prohibiting the same statements when made by ordinary people. It should work the other way around: politicians should be held to higher standards than the rest of us.

And Facebook should, in addition to suspending Trump, do the same with other heads of state who incite violence or violate the rule of law of their countries, including Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and other autocrats. Maduro was suspended from Facebook for 30 days on March 27, but he is now back on that social network.

At the very least, Facebook should label the most dangerous lies of presidents with unequivocal captions such as “this is false,” along with a link to credible fact-checkers or democratically elected institutions.

As Facebook’s Independent Advisory Council admitted, heads of state “may have greater power to cause harm than other people.” Unless their messages on social media are monitored with the same rigor as those of the rest of us, democracy will be subverted by would-be autocrats who blatantly lie.


The decline of Trump on the internet? New platform does not lift


It seems that Donald Trump no longer shows its quality of influence on internet, as in old timeswell your new platform not going well.

A four months what it was exiled of the main social networks, Trump seems to have problems with ‘From the Desk of Donald J. Trump’, essentially a blog for their reflections.

The data suggests that things are not going well within a week of its launch, reports NBC News.

According to an analysis of the specialized firm BuzzSumoThe former president’s blog has attracted a considerably smaller audience than his once powerful Twitter and Facebook accounts.

What’s going on?

According to the data, users cannot comment on or interact with actual posts beyond sharing them with other platforms, an action that few do.

Trump’s new blog has attracted just over 212,000 interactions, defined as backlinks and social interactions, including likes, shares, and comments, received on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Reddit.

Before the veto, a single message from Trump used to receive thousands of likes and was retweeted hundreds of thousands of times.

Blog posts come in the form of statements that are also sent to supporters via email.

In multiple daily interventions, Trump has targeted his political enemies and backed loyal supporters, continued to push false claims and conspiracy theories, and weighed in on the news of the day.

Lower audience

Due to the suspension of his traditional networks, Trump no longer has the ability to communicate with millions of people: 88 million followers on Twitter, 32 million on Facebook and 24 million on Instagram.

A CNBC analysis of Trump’s tweets in January found that the messages I liked the most spread misinformation.

But the conspiracy theories and insults that the former president has spread through his blog do not seem to move as in the time of his presidency.

The most popular shares of Trump’s new content came from conservative media and activists.

The main blog post, in which Trump criticized Facebook’s Oversight Board’s decision to uphold its ban, garnered just 16,000 interactions.

Trump’s blog posts racked up just a few thousand shares on average, according to an image text search using CrowdTangle, Facebook’s social media analytics tool.

The most recent blow came last week when Twitter terminated an account with more than 2,100 followers who mainly shared Trump’s blog posts.

We will take enforcement action on accounts whose apparent intent is to replace or promote content affiliated with a suspended account, “said a Twitter spokesperson.

‘Primitive platform’

Trump was temporarily or permanently banned from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube following what social media companies said was his glorification of the rioters on Capitol Hill on January 6.

Trump’s ban on Twitter is permanent, and his temporary suspension from YouTube will be lifted when the company decides that the threat of violence is no longer imminent.

On Facebook, his suspension is currently ‘indefinite’ for the next six months, as ordered by the Oversight Board last week.

The low engagement figures for Trump’s blog seem to suggest that the practice of de-platformsing a user, or isolating a user from their followers and thus cutting off common follower networks, is widely effective and can be used to reduce hate speech and glorification of violence on major platforms.

It also apparently restricts a public figure’s ability to attract a similar audience on an alternative platform.

In the case of Trump’s new platform, it is technologically so primitive that his followers cannot even migrate, ”said Jeremy Blackburn, assistant professor of computer science at Binghamton University in New York.

Yet Trump’s team is not giving up on getting their messages out in front of a large and engaged audience.



Censorship of Trump on Facebook Independent boards | Columnist | Opinion

On May 6, the self-styled “Facebook supervisory board”, created by the same social network, decided that the suspension of the account of the former president of the United States, Donald Trump, was pertinent for a defined period of time, since its suspension Ultimately, it would violate their “right to equality” in front of other users, especially politicians.

This determination has no other effect than to return the final decision to the company, which means that in the fight between Trump and the Facebook company there is still no winner. The “board” gave Facebook six months to define a more “fair” sanction than the definitive suspension.

After four months of deliberation, this was the “ruling” of the “board”, which is none other than the most obvious of the exits, since it returned the problem to the company, instead of dealing with the underlying problems such as dissemination of false news, political advertising with defamatory content, the sectorization of content to deceive the population, or how democratic freedoms are violated by this content and the negative interference of technology in electoral processes.

Instead of having achieved a definition on this delicate matter, this “board” limited itself to temporarily resolving a particular issue instead of taking advantage of the episode to deal with more important issues such as the abuse of social networks, the exacerbation of hatred, bullying, the dissemination of defamatory and degrading content and, of course, its effect on a political and global level in a hyper-connected, but equally uninformed society.

Similar incidents such as the use of the social network to amplify hate speech, anti-Semitic content and Holocaust denier forums had been presented in the past.

However, the fact of having taken actions against former US President Donald Trump a few days after his departure from the presidency, and after what happened on the Capitol in Washington, demonstrate not only the complacency of that social network, but also the temporary convenience and just formal suspension.

Other politicians accused of spreading false information have been Nicolás Maduro, Jair Bolsonaro and Rodrigo Duterte, to whom Facebook did not limit the use of the social network indefinitely, and allowed them to use other of its applications such as Instagram and WhatsApp, which shows the ineffectiveness of the board in conditioning the behavior of those who violate these spaces, since it is Facebook itself that ultimately decides who to veto.

The fundamental error is to think that this type of mechanism such as a “board” are really independent or have some real effect. In the end, Facebook is the one who holds the power and its “board” is nothing more than a makeup to make us believe that there is a serious commitment to better content or better information.

Andrés Barreto González
Superindustry and Commerce
President of the Ibero-American Data Protection Network.


Facebook adds the ‘read first’ function to prevent us from sharing ‘fake news’ | Lifestyle

Facebook was designated during 2016 and earlier as the place where all kinds of fake news roam freely that, at that time, served to alter the normal development of the electoral campaigns for the presidency of the United States and the Brexit referendum, thanks to countless news from the most unsuspected corners of the planet, which they saw in their viralization through social networks a round business.

After those events, it seems that social networks have realized the enormous responsibility they have at the time of facilitating that any rumor or non-verified information reaches millions of people, and that is why they started a campaign to prevent circumstances such as those that occurred in 2016 from being repeated. And a few hours ago, Facebook has written the (pen) last chapter in this fight against disinformation and fake news.

Following in the wake of Twitter

It was in October of last year when Twitter launched a new function by which it asked the user that, before sharing certain news, read them to verify that this is exactly what you want to do. It goes without saying that we live in a world where many times we trust a headline to send a news that later, in the body, has nothing to do with it. Hence that advice to “read it first” before sharing.

And that is precisely what Facebook has begun to incorporate into its social network, the warning to users that before putting a news item into circulation that could be considered as a fake news, Let’s read it and do the work of verifying that it comes from a trusted source and that conforms to what we expect, regardless of the headline. The idea that Mark Zuckerberg has worked with is to achieve an “informed exchange of news articles” among all users.

The important thing about this new filter, or notice to users, is that Facebook will be able to know if that article that we are going to share we have really read or simply, because the headline seems appropriate to us, we launch it without even knowing its content. In this way, and even if we end up doing what we wanted to share without reading, at least we will have Jiminy Cricket whispering into our ears that we are not doing the right thing. Something that, let’s remember, only helps disinformation and fake news proliferate at ease.


Minority of iOS users are accepting Facebook’s measures

In recent days, a measure was released where Apple users had to accept advertising tracking imposed by Facebook and Instagram if they wanted to continue enjoying the free service of the apps.

Also read: Facebook and Instagram impose measures on iOS users to keep the service free

The objective is that users can have personalized commercial recommendations that are consistent to your tastes and searches. Apparently, it is an alliance between the companies, since Apple retains a good part of the community active on platforms.

Despite the warning from social networks, to charge for the service in case they do not accept tracking for users of Apple, only 11.4% have decided to accept them, according to data published by Flurry Analytics.

It may interest you: How to put the dark mode of Instagram?

What will happen to users who do not accept?

Although the platforms of Marck Zuckerberg has not shown a position on this, it seems that they will have to Rethink the measures, as they did with the measures imposed by WhatsApp, which represented a significant loss of users.

You can read: The trial began: Apple and Epic Games, creator of Fortnite, face in court

Apparently, the American company will show its users a “educational screen” in which he will give his own version with more context on ad tracking to Facebook and Instagram users, to clear up rumors about it.


Trump accounts, will they continue to be suspended?



Trump veto reveals limits on Facebook’s “Supreme Court”

The 20 legal and governance experts Facebook paid to make “independent” judgments on its often controversial behavior showed they had some force in their first major ruling.

When Facebook Asked if it was correct to block Donald Trump from his platforms after the US presidential election, the oversight board supported the ban. Its members agreed that the former president had violated the rules of the social network by praising people involved in acts of violence and creating “an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible.”

But the board – a Supreme Court-style body appointed in 2020 – also looked down on Facebook for inventing a new sanction for Trump in the form of an indefinite ban and for the lack of due process surrounding his decisions on moderation. He returned the hot potato to the company to decide when and how to allow Trump to return.

“By applying a vague and non-standard sanction and then referring this case to the board for resolution, Facebook it seeks to evade its responsibilities, ”said the board, and questioned the legitimacy of the case itself. “The board rejects the request for Facebook and insists that Facebook request and apply a defined sanction ”.

“They cannot invent new unwritten rules when it suits them,” he said. Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Former Danish Prime Minister and Board Member.

The creation of the board came after Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, decided that the social network should not be the “arbiter of truth”, about “everything that people say online.” Instead, the company outsourced its toughest questions about what to drop and what to leave behind.

Nate Persily, professor at Stanford Law School, said the supervisory board was the best solution outside of government intervention. “Facebook took on the burden of this experiment, ”he said.

In an interview at the Global Boardroom conference in Financial Times on Wednesday, Nick Clegg, vice president of global affairs and communications for Facebook, acknowledged that the board “made quite sharp criticisms of the standards, policies and proportionality” surrounding the decision to ban Trump.

He declined to respond directly to criticism, but said the company “is now going to go and consider how we can evolve our approach” and hopes to do so “considerably faster” than the six-month timeframe set by the board. “It is not a perfect answer, but it is the best answer we can find in an imperfect world,” he added.

But the full board decision also revealed the limits of his power as he lobbied against the business model of Facebook.

The board stated that Facebook He refused to answer seven questions he asked and only gave partial answers to two others. These included how the news feed of Facebook affected the number of people who viewed the posts of Trump what if Facebook had considered changing the way his feed amplified or reduced controversial posts in the wake of the assault on the Capitol from ME January 6th.

Facebook he also did not want to discuss whether the followers of the Trump had also violated its rules or if a politician had backed the company by suspending the accounts of Trump.

Jesse Lehrich, of the activist group Accountable Tech, said Facebook “He probably didn’t want the board to be so annoying” and that he did “a good job of limiting it” in withholding information.

While the board’s ruling that Facebook must make a decision about Trump within six months is binding, its recommendations on other policies that the firm must enact are not. Many of your recommendations are likely to make the company uncomfortable.

The company has faced allegations, which it denies, of indulging both the left and the right, and concerns that its right-wing lobbyists from Washington, What Joel Kaplan, vice president of global public policy for Facebook, have been involved in moderation decisions.

Evelyn Douek, a professor at Harvard Law School, described Trump as “substantial and educational”, but added that the board “refused to give Facebook a concrete guide on what to do in the future ”. It left many, many unanswered and ambiguous questions. “