theodp writes: Dismissing questions of whether Ivanka Trump's Tuesday CES keynote appearance on The Path to the Future of Work should have gone to somebody else who's had more to do with tech in the administration, CES Chief Gary Shapiro informed the BBC: "Ivanka Trump actually co-chairs the American Workforce Policy Advisory Board, whose members include companies like Apple, Walmart and IBM." On that point, it's worth noting that signed minutes and slides from a Sept. 2019 meeting of the Ivanka-led American Workforce Policy Advisory Board discussed plans for a possible January launch of a private sector-led "big" national ad campaign, including an "influencer marketing plan," that will target "Youth aged 16 to 20, and importantly, their parents" with the goal of realizing the untapped potential of what IBM calls "new collar" workers -- "people who don't have a 4-year degree [young people and mid-career], but who have built the skills and credentials to contribute to areas like the cloud and the cyber sector." The marketing campaign is the product of a working group co-chaired by IBM CEO Ginni Rometty and Apple CEO Tim Cook.

In the slides, a screenshot from a "Landing Experience Prototype" for an accompanying website displays logos of some of America's biggest tech companies -- e.g. Microsoft, Google, Amazon, IBM -- and encourages visitors to: "Find an employer who understands. America's biggest employers know there's a huge skill shortage. They also know that today's top talent doesn't always come from traditional four-year universities. That's why we've asked them to sign a pledge to de-prioritize college degrees in their hiring processes."

Meeting minutes show that the Board -- pressed by IBM's Rometty -- approved her working group's proposal to "develop a private sector-led national campaign to raise awareness of and promote multiple pathways to well-paying jobs for all Americans" through a voice vote. Prior to the vote, IBM VP of Corporate Marketing Ann Gould Rubin explained that "advertising can be a compelling way to change even deep-seated perceptions," adding that "it could both change perceptions and cause people to act." Rubin noted that -- on its own -- IBM has initiated some research to gain insights into how to reach the target audiences, looking at motivations, drivers, interests, barriers, and reactions to descriptions of pathways.

Hey, like voters, those poor 16-year-old kids won't even know what hit 'em!

YouTube said Monday it is rolling out new protections for children viewing videos on its site (source may be paywalled; alternative source), an effort to satisfy federal regulators who last year fined the company tens of millions of dollars over alleged privacy violations. The Washington Post reports: The changes, which include limitations on data collection and advertising, are a step toward addressing concerns from advocacy groups who have complained the Google-owned company has run afoul of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, which forbids tracking and targeting users 12 and under. As part of those changes, YouTube said it will seek to better distinguish which content is intended primarily for children, relying on a combination of self-identification from creators and software. That content cannot run with personalized advertisements, under the new rules that YouTube said it is instituting globally starting Monday.

YouTube said it will assume any viewer of child-friendly content is underage, treating that data as subject to COPPA rules. It has been limiting other features too, such as comments on children's videos and live chats. [...] Some YouTube content creators, however, said the changes were likely to crater their advertising business, because personalized ads tend to sell for more than contextual ads. Eyal Baumel, CEO of management company Yoola, said he is encouraging clients with more child-friendly videos to find new sources of revenue to cope with any dip in sales. "The concern is that a majority of revenue will disappear," he said. "Creators need to start thinking about selling books, selling merchandise." "A lot of creators are telling me they may quit if it's as bad as they fear," said Baumel. "There's just a lot of confusion about how this will play out, particularly among the smallest channels."

Some app developers are concerned that frequent iOS 13 notifications will scare users away. From a report: "'Facebook' has used your location 107 times in the background over the past 3 days. Do you want to continue to allow background location use?" Such pop-up notifications are frequent for many iPhone users who have downloaded Apple's iOS 13. They arrive every few days for each app that tracks location while not in use and includes maps. Apple touted the new notifications as a way to make users more mindful of how much tracking goes on even when they aren't using their phones. Each notification gives users the option to let the app use their location data only when it is in use or if they agree for the app to track their locations at all times. Since iOS 13 was released in September, tens of millions of people have moved to block apps' ability to track their locations when not in use, according to an estimate from Location Sciences, a company that verifies mobile location data.

Some app developers, particularly the ones whose business models rely on being able to access users' locations at all times, are concerned that the iOS 13 notifications will hurt their apps' adoption. Seven of them signed an email to Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook addressing these concerns in August. The signatories included Life360, an app that lets family members track one another's location and can summon an ambulance immediately in the event of an auto accident, and Tile, a maker of tracking devices for items like wallets and keys. Both Life360 and Tile rely on constantly tracking all their users and compete with Find My, a preinstalled Apple app that helps users locate a lost iPhone -- and isn't subject to the same notifications. [...] Apple's iOS 13 location-tracking changes have hit the supply of mobile location data available for advertising and analytics, said Jason Smith, chief business officer of Location Sciences. He said the amount of location data gathered by apps while not in use had dropped by 70% since iOS 13 was released.

In an attempt to curb teen vaping, the FDA has officially banned most fruit- and mint-flavored, cartridge-based vaping products. Companies that manufacture, sell and distribute such products have 30 days to comply. Engadget reports: The new restrictions make some important exceptions. First, they permit tobacco- and menthol-flavored goods. They also apply only to cartridge-based products, which the FDA says are easier for teens to acquire and conceal. Tank-based vaping devices, like those sold in vape shops that typically cater to adult smokers, are not restricted by the new rules. The FDA says it is ready to take action against those who continue to manufacture and sell the unauthorized products. It will "prioritize enforcement" against those who target youth, whether they do so through kid-friendly labeling and advertising or promoting how easy it is to conceal or disguise their product. "The United States has never seen an epidemic of substance use arise as quickly as our current epidemic of youth use of e-cigarettes," said Department of Health and Human Service Secretary Alex Azar. The ban on fruit- and mint-flavored vape products is an attempt to ensure vaping products "don't provide an on-ramp to nicotine addiction for our youth" while also maintaining e-cigs as a potential off-ramp for adults using traditional tobacco products, Azar added.

An anonymous reader quotes USA Today: Spotify announced Friday that it will suspend political advertising on its platform next year, making it the latest in a series of tech and social media platforms to publicly address how it will handle content targeting voters. The music streaming company said that its decision was made because it does not yet have the means to screen political advertising content.

"At this point in time, we do not yet have the necessary level of robustness in our processes, systems and tools to responsibly validate and review this content. We will reassess this decision as we continue to evolve our capabilities," a spokesperson said in a statement to media outlets.

The move by Spotify, which was first reported by AdAge, comes after a wave of backlash against Facebook, which said it would not fact check content in political ads... Twitter also committed to stop accepting political ads in a stance against "forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people." And Google has said it will restrict the way political advertisers can target specific audiences.

After a longstanding campaign by Consumer Reports, The Television Viewer Protection Act of 2019 passed the House and the Senate last week buried inside a giant appropriations bill that now awaits President Trump's signature. Techdirt reports: The bill bans ISPs from charging you extra to rent hardware you already own (something ISPs like Frontier have been doing without penalty for a few years). It also forces cable TV providers to send an itemized list of any fees and other surcharges to new customers within 24 hours of signing up for service, and allows users shocked by the higher price to cancel service without penalty.

The bill's not perfect. Because of the act itself it largely only applies to cable TV, not broadband service where the problem is just as bad. And cable TV providers can still falsely advertise a lower rate, thanks to what appears to be some last minute lobbying magic on the part of the cable TV sector: "Initial versions of the legislation actually had the provision as truth in advertising, so you had to advertise the entire fees," said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at Public Knowledge, a Washington-based public-interest group. "But it's still an improvement over what currently exists, because you have a right to cancel after signing up." The trick now will be enforcement by a government and FCC that has routinely shown it's entirely cool with industry repeatedly ripping consumers off with bullshit fees to the tune of around $28 billion annually.

If you want to sign up for Facebook Messenger, you can no longer escape Big Blue -- you'll need an account from now on. From a report: The company has stopped allowing new users to join using a phone number. "We found that the vast majority of people who use Messenger already log in through Facebook and we want to simplify the process," a spokesperson told VentureBeat. "If you already use Messenger without a Facebook account, no need to do anything." Facebook has said that Messenger has over 1.3 billion users. The company spun messaging out of its main app in order to create Messenger, and in 2015 began allowing users to join without a Facebook account. The app has slowly begun featuring advertising, and businesses can provide customer service through Messenger as well.

dryriver writes: The 2010s were not necessarily the greatest decade to live through. AAA computer games were not only DRM'd and internet tethered to death but became increasingly formulaic and pay-to-win driven, and poor quality console ports pissed off PC gamers. Forced software subscriptions for major software products you could previously buy became a thing. Personal privacy went out the window in ways too numerous to list, with lawmakers failing on many levels to regulate the tech, data-mining and internet advertising companies in any meaningful way. Severe security vulnerabilities were found in hundreds of different tech products, from Intel CPUs to baby monitors and internet-connected doorbells. Thousands of tech products shipped with microphones, cameras, and internet connectivity integration that couldn't be switched off with an actual hardware switch. Many electronics products became harder or impossible to repair yourself. Printed manuals coming with tech products became almost non-existent. Hackers, scammers, ransomwarers and identity thieves caused more mayhem than ever before. Troll farms, click farms and fake news factories damaged the integrity of the internet as an information source. Tech companies and media companies became afraid of pissing off the Chinese government.

Windows turned into a big piece of spyware. Intel couldn't be bothered to innovate until AMD Ryzen came along. Nvidia somehow took a full decade to make really basic realtime raytracing happen, even though smaller GPU maker Imagination had done it years earlier with a fraction of the budget, and in a mobile GPU to boot. Top-of-the-line smartphones became seriously expensive. Censorship and shadow banning on the once-more-open internet became a thing. Easily-triggered people trying to muzzle other people on social media became a thing. The quality of popular music and music videos went steadily downhill. Star Wars went to shit after Disney bought it, as did the Star Trek films. And mainstream cinema turned into an endless VFX-heavy comic book movies, remakes/reboots and horror movies fest. In many ways, television was the biggest winner of the 2010s, with many new TV shows with film-like production values being made. The second winner may be computer hardware that delivered more storage/memory/performance per dollar than ever before.

To the question: What, dear Slashdotters, will the 2020s bring us? Will things get better in tech and other things relevant to nerds, or will they get worse?

Google has decided to remove hundreds of bitcoin and cryptocurrency videos from YouTube in what's being called a "crypto-purge" -- leaving many who make bitcoin and cryptocurrency-related videos feeling unfairly targeted by the search giant. A YouTube spokesperson said the video-sharing platform has since reinstated the purged videos, however some content creators claim their deleted videos remain inaccessible. Forbes reports: The YouTube crypto-purge appears to only be targeting smaller channels and publishers, with crypto-related videos from the likes of bitcoin and crypto news outlet CoinTelegraph and U.S. business news publisher CNBC escaping the cull. One YouTuber Chris Dunn, who has some 210,000 subscribers on the platform, asked YouTube for an explanation via Twitter. "YouTube just removed most of my crypto videos citing 'harmful or dangerous content' and 'sale of regulated goods,'" Dunn wrote, adding he's been making videos on the platform for 10 years and built up 200,000 subs and 7 million views.

Meanwhile, others have been searching for a reason for the purge, finding YouTube's citing of "harmful and dangerous content" unsatisfactory. "So far Alphabet [Google's parent company] has made no attempt to explain the reasons for the culling," Mati Greenspan, the founder of research group Quantum Economics, wrote in a note. "The first instinct that many had was that perhaps they're trying to protect the consumer from scams. However, this wouldn't make much sense given that Google and Facebook have already had a crypto advertising ban last year that has long since been reversed, likely due to regulatory clarity in the U.S. where it was found that bitcoin and ethereum are neither securities nor scams." A YouTube spokesperson told CoinDesk that YouTube made "the wrong call."

"With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call. When it's brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it. We also offer uploaders the ability to appeal removals and we will re-review the content," the spokesperson said. The spokesperson further stated that YouTube has not changed any policies related to cryptocurrency videos.

For decades France has had one of the most well-organized anti-advertising movements in the world, ranging from guerrilla protests with spray-cans to high-profile court cases. But now the boom in what is artfully called "digital-out-of-home advertising" -- eye-catching video screens dotted across urban areas, from train platforms to shopping centres -- has sparked a new spate of French protests, civil disobedience and petitions. From a report: High tech video billboards are multiplying in city spaces across the world, woven into the fabric of everyday life, from ribbon videos down escalators on the London underground, to French metro corridors, New York taxis, bus-shelters, newspaper kiosks, and -- increasingly -- broadcast from shop windows onto the street. They are becoming more sophisticated and interactive, with the potential to collect data from passersby; increasingly bright and inescapable -- impossible to click off or block like you can online. But in France, there is fresh debate on how urban planners and local councils should limit them in the public space for the sake of our overloaded eyes and brains.

The trend to squeeze every bit of city downtime into an opportunity to place people in front of screen has become a political battle on the left. Francois Ruffin of the French left party, La France Insoumise, recently tabled a French parliamentary amendment to ban video ads above urinals and toilets. It was dubbed the "Pee in Peace" motion. Ruffin said he was horrified when standing at a Paris cafe urinal to be visually "assaulted" by a video advertising Uber, a bank, and the book and tech store Fnac. "Who doesn't enjoy that rare moment of calm: having a piss?" he wrote in the amendment, warning that since 2015, over 2,000 of the screens had "colonised" 1,200 urinals in 25 French towns.

Long-time Slashdot reader pvjr writes that "The Inquirer is giving up the ghost and going dark in March, 2020."

An announcement on the site from the site's editor explains that the change is "due to a recent decline in digital advertising, along with a change of focus for the business..."

"We came, we Inquired, we're off to the pub." The site will remain live until the end of March, but Thursday [was] the final day that we will be publishing new content...

Before joining, I was a long-time admirer of the site, which since its debut in 2001 has energised tech journalism with its fearless attitude, snarky reporting, world-reaching exclusives and its ability to have an, er, bit fun now and again. This is all, of course, because of the fantastic team of journalists behind it...

And that brings me to the most important point of all. Thank you -- yes, you! -- dear reader. Over the past two decades, you have been the lifeblood of this website. Without you, The INQUIRER would have been a short-lived experiment, but your inquisitiveness, support and, er, often honest feedback made The INQUIRER the success that it was.

We'll see you down the pub...

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Facebook and Instagram will no longer allow influencers to promote vaping, tobacco products or weapons on its platforms using "branded content." Instagram announced Wednesday it would no longer allow "branded content" that promotes those goods on either platform. In June, Instagram introduced a change that would let advertisers promote posts from influencers, or users who work with brands to promote services or products. Users see a "paid partnership with" tag on a post when viewing that branded content on Instagram.

This change closes a loophole in Facebook's advertising policies. Even though Facebook's ad policies have banned the advertising of vaping, tobacco and weapons, private users can post about them, and until now advertisers could theoretically put paid promotion behind those posts. The company said it would begin enforcement of the new rule "in the coming weeks." An Instagram spokesperson said this is the first time it's implementing restrictions around the type of items that can be promoted for branded content. The company also said branded content that promotes goods such as alcohol or diet supplements will require "special restrictions" once new policies go into effect next year.

In early 2018, top executives at Alphabet debated whether the company should leave the public cloud business, but eventually set a goal of becoming a top-two player by 2023, according to a report from The Information on Tuesday. From a report: If the company fails to achieve this goal, some staffers reportedly believe that Alphabet could withdraw from the market completely. While Alphabet subsidiary Google is dominant in web search and advertising, the company is still a small player in cloud computing, which involves renting out computing and storage resources to other companies, schools and governments. In 2018 the company lagged Amazon, Microsoft and Alibaba in that market, according to industry research firm Gartner.

Apple says it goes out of its way to protect the safety and security of its young users. The App Store of 2019 tells a different story. Laura June, writing for InputMag: One of the most insidious forms of abuse on modern content platforms is the way unknown creators can co-opt well-known characters. Off-brand Spider-Man and fake Elsa and Anna pop up all over YouTube. I discovered this the hard way two years ago, when I found my daughter watching fake Peppa Pig videos on YouTube, many of them horrific and violent, and preying on the very young (Peppa Pig is a very popular television show for preschoolers). But YouTube, unlike Apple's App Store, is a platform where pretty much anyone can upload anything. And Google, which owns YouTube, doesn't peacock on stage like Tim Cook does, looking down his nose at Facebook and other companies for their lax attitudes on user safety. Given Apple's reputation, it was with some surprise that I found myself in a very similar position several weeks ago, while browsing Apple's App Store for games for my nearly 6-year-old daughter.

[...] Keep in mind, I was not looking for fakes. I fully expected to find only official apps for these company's characters. I didn't expect to find Paw Puppy Smashy Patrol in the store above the official Nickelodeon app PAW Patrol Pup Rescue Pack. Some apps boldly use the official Disney characters in their titles, literally advertising themselves with the copyrighted, intellectual property of a currently airing Disney show. But even the ones that aren't using Disney names in their titles depict characters that look nearly identical to Vampirina, Elsa and Anna, Sofia the First, and so on. The quality of the design varies, but some of them really do feature characters who look exactly like the ones you've come to know and trust (even if they've not-so-cleverly disguised themselves with names like Paw Puppy Smashy Patrol and Ice Queen Adventure). The apps are designed to fool you; fooling you is the goal. They're designed to make you think, "Oh right, Disney! We love Disney, we trust Disney. Let me download that for you, kid!"

Long-time Slashdot reader shanen writes: If you don't watch YouTube, then more power to you, but if you do watch it, then I bet you have noticed more and more intrusive and noisy and much longer ads along with frequent reminders that you can pay up and make the noise go away.

Feels like extortion to me and I'm not going to pay a blackmailer. But someone must be paying up. Is it you? Or do you even know anyone who is paying?
The original submission also shares shanen's argument that Google is exploiting copyright loopholes to monetize other people's copyrighted content. "It wouldn't even matter how much pirate video is uploaded to YouTube if the Google didn't make it easy to find... If the Google actually wanted to stop the piracy, the algorithm is obvious... The famous content has famous keywords and the searches for those keywords can be whitelisted. Pirate results can be disappeared and replaced with results that belong to the actual creator with legitimate exceptions for fair use." (But instead, the argument goes, they're just asking you for money to remove their ads on that content...)

That's shanen's opinion -- but what's yours? And would you pay to subscribe to YouTube?

"If you're systematically stealing money from a bank vault, it may not be a good idea to post the evidence on your social media pages," reports CNN: A bank employee in Charlotte, North Carolina, allegedly stole $88,000 from the bank's vault, according to a release from the United States Attorney's Office Western District of North Carolina. And he wasn't bashful about advertising to his social media followers the life of luxury he was funding.... Henderson's numerous Facebook and Instagram photos depict him posing with stacks of cash, and the U.S. Attorney's Office says he used the money to make a $20,000 down payment on a new Mercedes-Benz....

According to details from the indictment contained in the release, Henderson allegedly took bank customers' cash deposits out of the bank vault for months. Many of those times, he deposited money into an ATM near the bank where he worked, according to the release. "I make it look easy but this shyt really a PROCESS," he wrote in one Facebook post, part of a string in which he talked about building his "brand." That post, showed him him holding a stack of money and smoking a cigarette.
Henderson is now facing up to 30 years in prison.

Which bank? According to the Charlotte Observer, it was Wells Fargo.

If Google were to have a mascot, it might be the Street View car, with its towering camera rig and corporate logo exterior. From a report: There's good reason for that. In the 12 years since the search giant debuted Street View, which photographs the world at street level, the cars have been the company's ambassadors around the globe, prowling urban metropolises and rural countrysides. On Friday, Google revealed how much work those cars and other devices have done to map the world: the company has captured more than 10 million miles of Street View imagery. The distance, Google said, would amount to circling the Earth more than 400 times.

The company also said Google Earth, the search giant's aerial mapping service, has a total of 36 million square miles of satellite imagery for people to browse. With that collection, Google has mapped out the parts of the world where 98% of people live. The numbers mark the first time Google has released figures on how much of the world its services have charted, providing insight into the scope of Google Maps. With more than 1 billion monthly users, Maps is one of the company's most popular products. It's also a potent way for the search giant to deliver local advertising.

Mark Wycislik-Wilson, writing for BetaNews: Having already started to notify Windows 7 hangers on that support is due to come to an end, Microsoft is now ready to get a little more aggressive. If you haven't moved on from Windows 7, soon you will see full-screen notifications warning you that "your Windows 7 PC is out of support." The messages are due to be displayed from the day after support ends. So when January 15 rolls around, anyone who has doggedly stuck with Windows 7 will find that they not only have no support and no security updates, but also that they are pestered by an invasive message delivered by a program called EOSnotify.exe.

Avast, the multibillion-dollar Czech security company, doesn't just make money from protecting its 400 million users' information. It also profits in part because of sales of users' Web browsing habits and has been doing so since at least 2013. From a report: That's led to some labelling its tools "spyware," the very thing Avast is supposed to be protecting users from. Both Mozilla and Opera were concerned enough to remove some Avast tools from their add-on stores earlier this month, though the anti-virus provider says it's working with Mozilla to get its products back online. But recently appointed chief executive Ondrej Vlcek tells Forbes there's no privacy scandal here. All that user information that it sells cannot be traced back to individual users, he asserts. Here's how it works, according to Vlcek: Avast users have their Web activity harvested by the company's browser extensions. But before it lands on Avast servers, the data is stripped of anything that might expose an individual's identity, such as a name in the URL, as when a Facebook user is logged in. All that data is analysed by Jumpshot, a company that's 65%-owned by Avast, before being sold on as "insights" to customers. Those customers might be investors or brand managers.

What do those customers get? Vlcek says Jumpshot, which was initially acquired in 2013, provides "insights on how cohorts of users on the internet use the web." For instance, it could show a percentage of visitors who went from one website to another. That could be useful to anyone monitoring an advertising campaign. "Typical customers would be, for example, investors, who would be interested in how online companies are doing in terms of their new campaigns," the new Avast chief explains. Say Amazon launches a new product -- Jumpshot could determine how much interest it's getting online.

Two years ago, Apple launched an aggressive battle against ads that track users across the web. Today executives in the online publishing and advertising industries say that effort has been stunningly effective -- posing a problem for advertisers looking to reach affluent consumers. The Information reports: Since Apple introduced what it calls its Intelligent Tracking Prevention feature in September 2017, and with subsequent updates last year, advertisers have largely lost the ability to target people on Safari based on their browsing habits with cookies, the most commonly used technology for tracking. One result: The cost of reaching Safari users has fallen over 60% in the past two years, according to data from ad tech firm Rubicon Project. Meanwhile ad prices on Google's Chrome browser have risen slightly.

That reflects the fact that advertisers pay more money for ads that can be targeted at people with specific demographics and interests. "The allure of a Safari user in an auction has plummeted," said Rubicon Project CEO Michael Barrett. "There's no easy ability to ID a user." This shift is significant because iPhone owners tend to be more affluent and therefore more attractive to advertisers. Moreover, Safari makes up 53% of the mobile browser market in the U.S., according to web analytics service Statscounter. Only about 9% of Safari users on an iPhone allow outside companies to track where they go on the web, according to Nativo, which sells software for online ad selling. It's a similar story on desktop, although Safari has only about 13% of the desktop browser market. In comparison, 79% of people who use Google's Chrome browser allow advertisers to track their browsing habits on mobile devices through cookies. (Nativo doesn't have historical data so couldn't say what these percentages were in the past.)