https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/business/media/disney-netflix-advertising.html

The streaming wars are heating up. With the arrival of Disney Plus launching in November, Bob Iger and Co. are not playing games, and that means banning companies like Netflix, who can longer distribute ads across their entertainment networks, such as ABC or Freeform.  

As more entrants are looking to advertise in traditional television, Netflix is unable to rely upon subordinate business units to advertise its own brand. In terms of targeting a varied audience, Netflix will now have to find other entertainment outlets to market content. Unfortunately for Netflix, a sizable portion of their marketing share was spent on Disney related advertising. In 2018, the company spent about $1.8 billion on advertising last year, about $100 million of which bought ads on television networks. Roughly 13 percent of that $100 million went to Disney-owned entertainment networks. 

Strangely enough, Disney decided not to restrict advertising from HBO Max or Peacock, which are owned AT&T and Comcast, the two biggest cable service providers in the United States. Although, Disney added that the ban reflects “the comprehensive business relationships we have with many of these companies.” 

Disney may not need Netflix, but it will be interesting to see how Netflix adapts to new marketing strategies from here on out. At this point, it seems as if Disney is pivoting to control every aspect of the media space. The decision to restrict advertising from HBO Max or Peacock isn’t as significant because the streaming services are no where close to mirroring Netflix’s stature and dominance in the current market. Disney is picking off the big players one by one, and overtime, will probably have seized full control of the streaming industry as well.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi3__iMkI7lAhWImOAKHUFcBfsQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.techhive.com%2Farticle%2F3275885%2Fhow-to-stream-tv-on-vacation.html&psig=AOvVaw0SHU6CNLBReVfM65M3nqVt&ust=1570674354719475

In light of the recent trends regarding how individual’s view and interact with television, the BBC is preparing to revamp its streaming service. This move from the BBC comes after facing tough competition from Netflix in the past couple of years. Besides competition from Netflix, the BBC is attempting to combat the changes in the way individuals view television and is also planning to focus on their younger audience. The BBC’s streaming service is titled iPlayer and will become the main avenue for people to view their programming. Television shows on the service will now be available for up to a year, instead of the previous 30-day restriction. In previous years, the BBC’s iPlayer held a 40% share of the streaming market however, that number has dropped to 15% after the growth of Netflix.

The relaunch of the iPlayer will change the entire “look and feel” of the service. BBC’s director general says that the relaunch will open “a new front door for British Creativity”. The director general also promises their talent “unprecedented levels of freedom” and a “broader shop window” on all of their platforms. The Director of Content for the BBC also says that, “the iPlayer will become the heart of everything we do; the gateway to all our programmes – a total TV experience, which will bring everything you want from BBC television into one place for the first time.”

I find this article interesting because it is another example of a media company trying to adapt and change to the increase in streaming and the decrease in traditional television practices. With the coming years, we will see more and more of these articles describing different ways companies are switching to streaming and the innovative ways that they decide to make the switch. It is nice to see the BBC admit that what they were doing wasn’t working how it should have been. They took the necessary steps to grow with the changing times and it will be interesting to see how this works out for them.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/07/bbc-iplayer-revamp-life-beyond-channels

Over the past several years the AI technology known as “deepfakes” have become a noticeable threat to the future. People fear that this tech will be used to create chaos and could potentially lead to wars. For now, no real issues have arisen that have caused any national panic, but celebrities and other unsuspecting victims have found their faces being superimposed on the bodies of porn actors. According to research lab, Deep Trace, that are dedicated to looking into the world of deepfakes, there are over 14,678 deepfake videos online, 96% of them being pornographic. Clearly, the technology is not currently being used to cause mass destruction or political disarray on any level, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. Most of the victims to deepfakes of all kinds are Western subjects, but this technology is not just a Western phenomenon. Other videos that use deepfakes of political figures or well-known players in the business world are typically parodies of the subject.

While the current market of deepfakes videos seems to be juvenile and used to fulfill some tech geniuses fantasy, what makes the future so scary is how easy the creation is becoming. Deep Trace found that average users are able to experiment and come up with different algorithms and versions of these videos. These are then being created into reusable codes and transferred with tools a non-expert could navigate. Niche websites like Github, 4chan, and 8chan are examples of there communities of deepfake creators are popping up. While, these parties typically use the software for nonsense work like turning Seth Rogan into Christian Bale seamlessly while doing an interview, there will always be a fear that it will turn into malicious and harmful intentions, like propaganda. George Patrini, leader of Deep Trace lab’s, stated, “And the idea of deepfakes alone is enough to destabilize political processes.”

I have increasingly become aware of the concept and use of deepfakes as I take different media courses over the years and I have become more and more alerted by their potential uses. I have seen stories break where random women have found their face used in porn videos and other celebrities facing the same issues, and while not necessarily a world threatening issue, it is violating and unsettling. I then later saw an example of a deepfake being used on a video of President Donald Trump that made it seem like he was reciting a string of degrading nonsense sentences. While this was supposed to be for comedy I became worried by the idea of someone creating a fake charged with political propaganda that could cause war or worse. Luckily nothing of that nature has been done, but with the political climate becoming increasingly unsteady you never know what people will do.

article

Gif

 

source: https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-bundle-of-apple-music-and-apple-tv-plus-hits-a-snag-record-label-skeptics-ft-report/

Like many other streaming service Apple TV plus is going to hop on the bandwagon by offering a bundle deal with their own, Apple Music. The other popular streaming service known for doing this is Spotify. Spotify  offers a similar bundle deal with Hulu. Students who have a subscription to Spotify are offered Hulu for only five dollars a month which is a great deal considering that regular subscriptions for both of these services are over ten dollars,

Apple TV Plus streaming’s service is said to be priced at only five dollars a month, not only is this less money than all of its competitors but the entire bundle will be offered at that same price. This price isn’t exclusive to students, it will apply to everyone with a subscription. This system would essentially give you more ‘bang for your buck’.

Though this sounds like a good deal one record label is having an issue with Apple offering its music services for such a low price. The problem is that the label feels this sort of shift would lower profit. Not only for them but for Apple as well.

Apple declined to comment on this complaint, however being that the company is worth one-trillion dollars, I don’t think money would be an issue. More importantly, both of the streaming services are owned by the same companies, unlike their competitors. Hopefully Apple TV Plus is able to last in the streaming market.

Image Link :https://home.bt.com/tech-gadgets/computing/gaming/a-parents-guide-to-game-streaming-services-what-are-they-and-are-they-safe-11364315572830

ideo Games are one of the fastest growing media markets out there.  This has led to many additional industries forming, springing up from the groundwork from the groundwork of video games. Perhaps the most famous example of this is has been the massive success of video game streaming. Youtubers, Twitch streamers and E-sports competitors have collectively made millions in the past year with their content, and some in the sphere have been elevated to near celebrity status because of it. However, all this money is divided up, both in terms of platforms that stream video games and the content creators who play it. Enter the Video Games and News Network, or VENN. This network is set to launch in 2020, and will focus on producing video game centered content, ranging from documentaries to E-sports. The creators of VENN hope this network will serve two purposes, the first is to streamers the ability to produce higher quality content. The second is what every network want to do, to provide an outlet for advertisers.  As a consumer of YouTube let’s plays myself, I am quite interested to see where this product turns out.  I feel the world of video game streaming is largely ignored by many producers and advertisers, which is a shame given the vast potential it has in terms of audience reach. I’m also very interested in seeing how this competes not only with other streaming outlets, but also with traditional media, both new and old. I think the VENN is the right step towards making video game streaming appear as a more legitimate media outlet,  and there may come a time when sitting down to watch tow teams face of in a E-sport match in Overwatch will be viewed in the same light we view football games today.

Article Link : https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2019/09/17/venn-esports-funding-riot-games/#7ea18a3237a7

It is no secret that streaming services are dominating the entertainment market. The universal movement to be able to watch anything, anywhere, at anytime, on any device opened up this highly profitable yet wildly competitive market that one of the worlds biggest companies is about to take by storm.

The long-anticipated Disney+ streaming service is set to hit the market in a little over a month, on November 12th, 2019. How will they compete against the novelty success of Netflix, you might ask? Well, first of all, it’s Disney. Second of all, Disney will no longer rent their content to other streaming services but harbor a service of their own with all of their original content. You might be thinking to yourself, “well, I’ve been watching a little too much Lilo & Stitch anyway. And I can live without Beauty and the Beast.” The traditional Walt Disney content that comes to mind merely scratches the surface of Disney’s extensive back catalog, which is precisely the thing that will give Disney+ an extreme advantage.

We all know Disney’s massive success in the film and television industry, but many do not know the extent of content they technically own. Aside from their own original content, Disney’s film properties include Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures, and Blue Sky Studios. What this means to the average individual that Finding Nemo (Pixar), Iron Man (Marvel Studios), Star Wars (Lucasfilm), Home Alone (20th Century Fox), Napoleon Dynamite (Fox Searchlight Pictures), and so many more favorites will be off limits to any non-Disney+-subscribers. According to Mark Mahaney of RBC Capital Markets, Disney plans to spend around $1 billion on original content surrounding their existing brands, while Netflix will be spending 7-8x that much. Netflix’s content budget stands around the $15 billion range. Half of this goes toward original content while the other half goes toward their rented content. Netflix’s absence of a back catelog like Disney’s puts a pressure on them to produce more original content in order to establish some security. Simply harboring rented content runs the risk of partners breaking the relationship with Netflix, which would leave Netflix with nothing. Disney, on the other hand, has ultimate security with their extensive back catelog.

With all that being said, the final verdict is that there seems to be room for both Disney+ and existing streaming services such as Netflix to coexist successfully. According to a survey conducted by RBC Capital Markets, the vast majority of viewers are willing to sign up for more than one service, with 70% willing to subscribe to two or more services. I, myself, am subscribed to Netflix, Hulu, and HBOGo (okay, lets be real. I mooch off of my mom’s Netflix and my friends HBOGo. But I totally would subscribe to all three!). Each streaming service has their own “special sauce”, or varied array of content that is central to that particular service. This draws customers to subscribe to more than one service in order to watch all of their favorite TV shows and movies, leaving room for both Disney and Netflix to revel in tremendous success as streaming services.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/12/disney-has-a-major-advantage-in-the-streaming-war-rbc-capital.html

Image source: https://thenextweb.com/artificial-intelligence/2019/09/25/reddit-and-gabs-most-toxic-communities-inadvertently-train-ai-to-combat-hate-speech/

Many more to go. Reddit is cracking down on problematic reddit groups, employing a rule change policy in efforts to eliminate groups who promote hatred and violence against certain populations. For the most part, these forums consist of sad white straight men that have wet dreams about a white supremacist nation where women and minorities are subordinate, because it seems they have nothing better to do.

The policy plans to ban any groups that adhere to these behaviors:

“Anything that works to shut someone out of the conversation through intimidation or abuse, online or off.”

Which includes:

“menacing someone, directing abuse at a person or group, following them around the site, encouraging others to do any of these actions, or otherwise behaving in a way that would discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit.”

Reddit is plagued with incels (abbreviated from “involuntary celibate”) forums.

What are incels? They are men that claim they cannot find themselves a partner, romantically or sexually, and resort to misogynist ideology as a scapegoat for their incompetence. But it’s not just ideology. These groups promote violence, and just recently got the attention of military troops.

Image source: https://variety.com/2019/film/news/joker-fbi-warning-violence-lapd-joaquin-phoenix-1203350545/

There plans taking place on these forums to shoot-up movie theaters during the Joker premiere tonight, copycatting the tragic The Dark Knight Rises mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado back in 2012.

Clearly, this comic book character is not to blame, but unintentionally, Joker serves as role model to incels. The storyline boils down to a misunderstood man named Arthur who lives in city that treats him like shit every day.  Instead of considering some change in life choices, Arthur believes he should take these matters into his own hands by creating a band of anarchists to revolt against society and all it’s cruelty. Naturally, incels live vicariously through this persona.

Reddit’s efforts have good intentions, and I hope regulation only further progresses to abolish hateful rhetoric and behavior in online space. Though, many users had questions as to how effective this policy will be. Issues of bullying and threatening need to be handled on a case by case basis, creating ambiguity to Reddit’s rule change.

There still is a lot of work to be done, but the best solution now is to keep enforcing stricter policies and for developers to pay diligent attention as to what is being posted and shared on their platforms.

Source material: https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/30/20891920/reddit-harassment-bullying-threats-new-policy-change-rules-subreddits

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/09/googles-knowledge-panels-are-magnifying-disinformation/598474/

This article from The Atlantic discusses the unitended problems that have stemmed from disinformation being utilized in their knowledge panels. Google knowledge panels are panels that show up at the top of Google search results that are suppose to give a brief but succint information on a people, organizations, etc. These knowledge panels utilize algorithms to quickly grab pertinant information from a wide range of online sources, one of the chief ones being wikipedia. As useful as these panels can be for quick searches, it has been made clear in this article that misinformation plagues Google knowledge panels. The author of this article introduces the reader to this discourse by using Martin John Byrant, a tech consultant who happens to share the same exact name as the shooter from the Port Arthur massacre. According to google knowledge panel, the shooter is the first result posted when you google Martin John Byrant. You can see how this might have an effect on someones career as his identity has been effectively tied to this shooter, because of Google’s algorithms.

Martin is not the first to have been wronged by misinformation being spread on Google knowledge panels. Countless actors and political offices in the United States and abroad have faced issues dealing with misinformation being acredited to their identity or lack thereof in Google Knowledge panels. Google has a feature to report false information on their knowledge panels, but for relatively unimportant people like Martin John Byrant his requests have been ignored. Martin Considered the though of trying to buy the knowledge panel, but apparently Google does not allow the transfer of ownership of knowledge panels. Another glaring issue with the spread of misinformation on google knowledge panels is wikipedia. As most know Wikipedia is a public source that can be edited by anybody. So false information can infact be spread to google knowledge panels by editing certain wikipedia pages.

Google has acknowledged the increasing issue knowledge panels play in presenting misinformation online. They even published a white paper called, “How Google fights Disinformation”, where they go into detail how knowledge panels are a tool for users to get context and to better avoid deceptive content. Google refused to include any information about their algorithms stating that “sharing too much of the granular details of how our algorithms and processes work would make it easier for bad actors to exploit them”. I personally think Google needs to work on their algorithms, its clear the current formula isn’t doing anyone favors.