Website Search
Research Papers
plg_search_attachments
Articles
FAQs
Easy Profile - Search plugin
Courses & Exams
Pages
Specialized Search Engines
Events Calender
Upcoming Events
Anthony Frank

Anthony Frank

WE FACE a crisis of computing. The very devices that were supposed to augment our minds now harvest them for profit. How did we get here?

Most of us only know the oft-told mythology featuring industrious nerds who sparked a revolution in the garages of California. The heroes of the epic: Jobs, Gates, Musk, and the rest of the cast. Earlier this year, Mark Zuckerberg, hawker of neo-Esperantist bromides about “connectivity as panacea” and leader of one of the largest media distribution channels on the planet, excused himself by recounting to senators an “aw shucks” tale of building Facebook in his dorm room. Silicon Valley myths aren’t just used to rationalize bad behavior. These business school tales end up restricting how we imagine our future, limiting it to the caprices of eccentric billionaires and market forces.

What we need instead of myths are engaging, popular histories of computing and the internet, lest we remain blind to the long view.

At first blush, Yasha Levine’s Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet (2018) seems to fit the bill. A former editor of The eXile, a Moscow-based tabloid newspaper, and investigative reporter for PandoDaily, Levine has made a career out of writing about the dark side of tech. In this book, he traces the intellectual and institutional origins of the internet. He then focuses on the privatization of the network, the creation of Google, and revelations of NSA surveillance. And, in the final part of his book, he turns his attention to Tor and the crypto community.

He remains unremittingly dark, however, claiming that these technologies were developed from the beginning with surveillance in mind and that their origins are tangled up with counterinsurgency research in the Third World. This leads him to a damning conclusion: “The Internet was developed as a weapon and remains a weapon today.”

To be sure, these constitute provocative theses, ones that attempt to confront not only the standard Silicon Valley story, but also established lore among the small group of scholars who study the history of computing. He falls short, however, of backing up his claims with sufficient evidence. Indeed, he flirts with creating a mythology of his own — one that I believe risks marginalizing the most relevant lessons from the history of computing.

The scholarly history is not widely known and worth relaying here in brief. The internet and what today we consider personal computing came out of a unique, government-funded research community that took off in the early 1960s. Keep in mind that, in the preceding decade, “computers” were radically different from what we know today. Hulking machines, they existed to crunch numbers for scientists, researchers, and civil servants. “Programs” consisted of punched cards fed into room-sized devices that would process them one at a time. Computer time was tedious and riddled with frustration. A researcher working with census data might have to queue up behind dozens of other users, book time to run her cards through, and would only know about a mistake when the whole process was over.

Users, along with IBM, remained steadfast in believing that these so-called “batch processing” systems were really what computers were for. Any progress, they believed, would entail building bigger, faster, better versions of the same thing.

But that’s obviously not what we have today. From a small research, a community emerged an entirely different set of goals, loosely described as “interactive computing.” As the term suggests, using computers would no longer be restricted to a static one-way process but would be dynamically interactive. According to the standard histories, the man most responsible for defining these new goals was J. C. R. Licklider. A psychologist specializing in psychoacoustics, he had worked on early computing research, becoming a vocal proponent for interactive computing. His 1960 essay “Man-Computer Symbiosis” outlined how computers might even go so far as to augment the human mind.

It just so happened that funding was available. Three years earlier in 1957, the Soviet launch of Sputnik had sent the US military into a panic. Partially in response, the Department of Defense (DoD) created a new agency for basic and applied technological research called the Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA, today is known as DARPA). The agency threw large sums of money at all sorts of possible — and dubious — research avenues, from psychological operations to weather control. Licklider was appointed to head the Command and Control and Behavioral Sciences divisions, presumably because of his background in both psychology and computing.

At ARPA, he enjoyed relative freedom in addition to plenty of cash, which enabled him to fund projects in computing whose military relevance was decidedly tenuous. He established a nationwide, multi-generational network of researchers who shared his vision. As a result, almost every significant advance in the field from the 1960s through the early 1970s was, in some form or another, funded or influenced by the community he helped establish.

Its members realized that the big computers scattered around university campuses needed to communicate with one another, much as Licklider had discussed in his 1960 paper. In 1967, one of his successors at ARPA, Robert Taylor, formally funded the development of a research network called the ARPANET. At first the network spanned only a handful of universities across the country. By the early 1980s, it had grown to include hundreds of nodes. Finally, through a rather convoluted trajectory involving international organizations, standards committees, national politics, and technological adoption, the ARPANET evolved in the early 1990s into the internet as we know it.

Levine believes that he has unearthed several new pieces of evidence that undercut parts of this early history, leading him to conclude that the internet has been a surveillance platform from its inception.

The first piece of evidence he cites comes by way of ARPA’s Project Agile. A counterinsurgency research effort in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, it was notorious for its defoliation program that developed chemicals like Agent Orange. It also involved social science research and data collection under the guidance of an intelligence operative named William Godel, head of ARPA’s classified efforts under the Office of Foreign Developments. On more than one occasion, Levine asserts or at least suggests that Licklider and Godel’s efforts were somehow insidiously intertwined and that Licklider’s computing research in his division of ARPA had something to do with Project Agile. Despite arguing that this is clear from “pages and pages of released and declassified government files,” Levine cites only one such document as supporting evidence for this claim. It shows how Godel, who at one point had surplus funds, transferred money from his group to Licklider’s department when the latter was over budget.

This doesn’t pass the sniff test. Given the freewheeling nature of ARPA’s funding and management in the early days, such a transfer should come as no surprise. On its own, it doesn’t suggest a direct link in terms of research efforts. Years later, Taylor asked his boss at ARPA to fund the ARPANET — and, after a 20-minute conversation, he received $1 million in funds transferred from ballistic missile research. No one would seriously suggest that ARPANET and ballistic missile research were somehow closely “intertwined” because of this.

Sharon Weinberger’s recent history of ARPA, The Imagineers of War: The Untold Story of DARPA, The Pentagon Agency that Changed the World(2017), which Levine cites, makes clear what is already known from the established history. “Newcomers like Licklider were essentially making up the rules as they went along,” and were “given broad berth to establish research programs that might be tied only tangentially to a larger Pentagon goal.” Licklider took nearly every chance he could to transform his ostensible behavioral science group into an interactive computing research group. Most people in wider ARPA, let alone the DoD, had no idea what Licklider’s researchers were up to. His Command and Control division was even renamed the more descriptive Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO).

Licklider was certainly involved in several aspects of counterinsurgency research. Annie Jacobsen, in her book The Pentagon’s Brain: An Uncensored History of DARPA, America’s Top-Secret Military Research Agency (2015), describes how he attended meetings discussing strategic hamlets in Southeast Asia and collaborated on proposals with others who conducted Cold War social science research. And Levine mentions Licklider’s involvement with a symposium that addressed how computers might be useful in conducting counterinsurgency work.

But Levine only points to one specific ARPA-funded computing research project that might have had something to do with counterinsurgency. In 1969, Licklider — no longer at ARPA — championed a proposal for a constellation of research efforts to develop statistical analysis and database software for social scientists. The Cambridge Project, as it was called, was a joint effort between Harvard and MIT. Formed at the height of the antiwar movement, when all DoD funding was viewed as suspicious, it was greeted with outrage by student demonstrators. As Levine mentions, students on campuses across the country viewed computers as large, bureaucratic, war-making machines that supported the military-industrial complex.

Levine makes a big deal of the Cambridge Project, but is there really a concrete connection between surveillance, counterinsurgency, computer networking, and this research effort? If there is, he doesn’t present it in the book. Instead, he relies heavily on an article in the Harvard Crimson by a student activist. He doesn’t even directly quote from the project proposal itself, which should contain at least one or two damning lines. Instead, he lists types of “data banks” the project would build, including ones on youth movements, minority integration in multicultural societies, and public opinion polls, among others. The project ran for five years but Levine never tells us what it was actually used for.

It’s worth pointing out that the DoD was the only organization that was funding computing research in a manner that could lead to real breakthroughs. Licklider and others needed to present military justification for their work, no matter how thin. In addition, as the 1960s came to a close, Congress was tightening its purse strings, which was another reason to trump up their relevance. It’s odd that an investigative reporter like Levine, ever suspicious of the standard line, should take the claims of these proposals at face value.

I spoke with John Klensin, a member of the Cambridge Project steering committee who was involved from the beginning. He has no memory of such data banks. “There was never any central archive or effort to build one,” he told me. He worked closely with Licklider and other key members of the project, and he distinctly recalls the tense atmosphere on campuses at the time, even down to the smell of tear gas. Oddly enough, he says some people worked for him by day and protested the project by night, believing that others elsewhere must be doing unethical work. According to Klensin, the Cambridge Project conducted “zero classified research.” It produced general purpose software and published its reports publicly. Some of them are available online, but Levine doesn’t cite them at all. An ARPA commissioned study of its own funding history even concluded that, while the project had been a “technical success” whose systems were “applicable to a wide variety of disciplines,” behavioral scientists hadn’t benefited much from it. Until Levine or someone else can produce documents demonstrating that the project was designed for, or even used in, counterinsurgency or surveillance efforts, we’ll have to take Klensin at his word.

As for the ARPANET, Levine only provides one source of evidence for his claim that, from its earliest days, the experimental computer network was involved in some kind of surveillance activity. He has dug up an NBC News report from the 1970s that describes how intelligence gathered in previous years (as part of an effort to create dossiers of domestic protestors) had been transferred across a new network of computer systems within the Department of Defense.

This report was read into the Congressional record during joint hearings on Surveillance Technology in 1975. But what’s clear from the subsequent testimony of Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense David Cooke, the NBC reporter had likely confused several computer systems and networks across various government agencies. The story’s lone named source claims to have seen the data structure used for the files when they arrived at MIT. It is indeed an interesting account, but it remains unclear what was transferred, across which system, and what he saw. This incident hardly shows “how military and intelligence agencies used the network technology to spy on Americans in the first version of the Internet,” as Levine claims.

The ARPANET was not a classified system — anyone with an appropriately funded research project could use it. “ARPANET was a general purpose communication network. It is a distortion to conflate this communication system’s development with the various projects that made use of its facilities,” Vint Cerf, creator of the internet protocol, told me. Cerf concedes, however, that a “secured capability” was created early on, “presumably used to communicate classified information across the network.” That should not be surprising, as the government ran the project. But Levine’s evidence merely shows that surveillance information gathered elsewhere might have been transferred across the network. Does that count as having surveillance “baked in,” as he says, to the early internet?

Levine’s early history suffers most from viewing ARPA or even the military as a single monolithic entity. In the absence of hard evidence, he employs a jackhammer of willful insinuations as described above, pounding toward a questionable conclusion. Others have noted this tendency. He disingenuously writes that, four years ago, a review of Julian Assange’s book in this very publication accused him of being funded by the CIA, when in fact its author had merely suggested that Levine was prone to conspiracy theories. It’s a shame because today’s internet is undoubtedly a surveillance platform, both for governments and the companies whose cash crop is our collective mind. To suggest this was always the case means ignoring the effects of the hysterical national response to 9/11, which granted unprecedented funding and power to private intelligence contractors. Such dependence on private companies was itself part of a broader free market turn in national politics from the 1970s onward, which tightened funds for basic research in computing and other technical fields — and cemented the idea that private companies, rather than government-funded research, would take charge of inventing the future. Today’s comparatively incremental technical progress is the result. In The Utopia of Rules (2015), anthropologist David Graeber describes this phenomenon as a turn away from investment in technologies promoting “the possibility of alternative futures” to investment in those that “furthered labor discipline and social control.” As a result, instead of mind-enhancing devices that might have the same sort of effect as, say, mass literacy, we have a precarious gig economy and a convenience-addled relationship with reality.

Levine recognizes a tinge of this in his account of the rise of Google, the first large tech company to build a business model for profiting from user data. “Something in technology pushed other companies in the same direction. It happened just about everywhere,” he writes, though he doesn’t say what the “something” is. But the lesson to remember from history is that companies on their own are incapable of big inventions like personal computing or the internet. The quarterly pressure for earnings and “innovations” leads them toward unimaginative profit-driven developments, some of them harmful.

This is why Levine’s unsupported suspicion of government-funded computing research, regardless of the context, is counterproductive. The lessons of ARPA prove inconvenient for mythologizing Silicon Valley. They show a simple truth: in order to achieve serious invention and progress — in computers or any other advanced technology — you have to pay intelligent people to screw around with minimal interference, accept that most ideas won’t pan out, and extend this play period to longer stretches of time than the pressures of corporate finance allow. As science historian Mitchell Waldrop once wrote, the polio vaccine might never have existed otherwise; it was “discovered only after years of failure, frustration, and blind alleys, none of which could have been justified by cost/benefit analysis.” Left to corporate interests, the world would instead “have gotten the best iron lungs you ever saw.”

Computing for the benefit of the public is a more important concept now than ever. In fact, Levine agrees, writing, “The more we understand and democratize the Internet, the more we can deploy its power in the service of democratic and humanistic values.” Power in the computing world is wildly unbalanced — each of us mediated by and dependent on, indeed addicted to, invasive systems whose functionality we barely understand. Silicon Valley only exacerbates this imbalance, in the same manner, that oil companies exacerbate climate change or financialization of the economy exacerbates inequality. Today’s technology is flashy, sexy, and downright irresistible. But, while we need a cure for the ills of late-stage capitalism, our gadgets are merely “the best iron lungs you ever saw.”

 Source: This article was published lareviewofbooks.org By Eric Gade

The kids of today are comfortable in the digital space. They use digital diaries and textbooks at school, communicate via instant messaging, and play games on mobile devices.

However, as much as the Internet is an incredible resource, access to it can be dangerous for children, and parents who want their child to spend time online safely and productively, need to understand the basic concepts of digital security and the associated threats and be able to explain them to their children.

With this in mind, Kaspersky Lab compiles an annual report, based on statistics received from its solutions and modules with child protection features, which examines the online activities of children around the world.

Video content

According to the report, globally, video content made up 17% of Internet searches. Although many videos watched as a result of these searches may be harmless, it is still possible for children to accidentally end up watching videos that contain harmful or inappropriate content.

The report presents search results on the ten most-popular languages for the last six months. The data shows that the 'video and audio' category, which covers requests related to any video content, streaming services, video bloggers, series, and movies, are the most regularly 'Googled', and make up 17% of the total requests.

Second and third places go to translation (14%) and communication (10%) Web sites respectively. Gaming Websites sit in fourth place, generating only 9% of the total search requests.

Harnessing smart wearables to spy on owners

Kaspersky Lab has also noted a clear language difference for search requests. "For example, video and music Web sites are typically searched for in English, which can be explained by the fact that the majority of movies, TV series and musical groups have English names. Spanish-speaking kids carry out more requests for translation sites, while communication services are mostly searched for in Russian."

Chinese-speaking children look for education services, while French kids are more interested in sport and games Web sites. German children dominate in the "shopping" category, Japanese kids search for Anime, and the highest number of search requests for pornography are in Arabic.

Anna Larkina, the Web-content analysis expert at Kaspersky Lab, says children around the world have varying interests and online behaviors, but what links them all is their need to be protected online from potentially harmful content.

"Children looking for animated content could accidentally open a porn video. Or they could start searching for innocent videos and unintentionally end up on Web sites containing violent content, both of which could have a long-term impact on their impressionable and vulnerable minds," she says.

A local view

In addition to analyzing searches, the report also delves into the types of Web sites children visit, or attempt to visit, which contain potentially harmful content that falls under one of the 14 pre-set categories, which cover Internet communication sites, adult content, narcotics, computer games, gambling and many others.

The data revealed that in South Africa, communication sites (such as social media, messengers, or e-mails) were the most popular (69%) of pages visited.

However, the percentage for this category is dropping each year, as mobile devices play an increasingly bigger role in children's online activities.

The second most popular category of Web sites visited in SA is 'software, audio, and video', accounting for 17%. Websites with this content have become significantly more popular since last year when it was only the fifth most popular category globally at 6%.

Others in the top four are electronic commerce (4.2%) and alcohol, tobacco, and Web sites about narcotics (3.9%), which is a new addition compared to this time last year.

Education

Irrespective of what children are doing online, it is important for parents not to leave their children's digital activities unattended, says Larkina.

"While it is important to trust your children and educate them about how to behave safely online, even your good advice cannot protect them from something unexpectedly showing up on the screen. That's why advanced security solutions are key to ensuring children have positive online experiences, rather than harmful ones," she concludes.

Source: This article was published itweb.co.za

You may have heard about Google’s mobile-first indexing. Since nearly 60 percent of all searches are mobile, it makes sense that Google would give preference to mobile-optimized content in its search results pages.

Are your website and online content ready? If not, you stand to lose search-engine rankings and your website may not rank in the future.

Here is how to determine if you need help with Google’s mobile-first algorithm update:

What is mobile-first indexing?

Google creates an index of website pages and content to facilitate each search query. Mobile-first indexing means the mobile version of your website will weigh heavier in importance for Google’s indexing algorithm. Mobile responsive, fast-loading content is given preference in first-page SERP website rankings.

Mobile first doesn’t mean Google only indexes mobile sites. If your company does not have a mobile-friendly version, you will still get indexed, but your content will be ranked below mobile-friendly content. Websites with a great mobile experience will receive better search-engine rankings than a desktop-only version. Think about how many times you scroll to the second page of search results. Likely, not very often. That is why having mobile optimized content is so important.

How to determine if you need help

If you want to make sure you position your company to take advantage of mobile indexing as it rolls out, consider whether you can manage the following tasks on your own or if you need help:

  • Check your site: Take advantage of Google’s test site to see if your site needs help.
  • Mobile page speed: Make sure you enhance mobile page speed and load times. Mobile optimized content should load in 2 seconds or less. You want images and other elements optimized to render well on mobile devices.
  • Content: You want high-quality, relevant and informative mobile-optimized content on your site. Include text, videos, images and more that are crawlable and indexable.
  • Structured data: Use the same structured data on both desktop and mobile pages. Use mobile version of URLs in your structured data on mobile pages.
  • Metadata: Make sure your metadata such as titles and meta descriptions for all pages is updated.
  • XML and media sitemaps: Make sure your mobile version can access any links to sitemaps. Include robots.txt and meta-robots tags and include trust signals like links to your company’s privacy policy.
  • App index: Verify the mobile version of your desktop site relates to your app association files and others if you use app indexation for your website.
  • Server capacity: Make sure your hosting servers have the needed capacity to handle crawl mobile and desktop crawls.
  • Google Search Console: If you use Google Search Console, make sure you add and verify your mobile site as well.

What if you do not have a mobile site or mobile-optimized content?
If you have in-house resources to upgrade your website for mobile, the sooner you can implement the updates, the better.

If not, reach out to a full-service digital marketing agency like ours, which can help you update your website so that it can continue to compete. Without a mobile-optimized website, your content will not rank as well as websites with mobile-friendly content.

Source: This article was published bizjournals.com By Sheila Kloefkorn

Below is what happened in search today, as reported on Search Engine Land and from other places across the web.

 Source: This article was published searchengineland.com By Barry Schwartz

Internet-related legal issues are still treated as fringe issues in both public and private international law. Anyone doubting this claim need only take a look at the tables of content from journals in those respective fields. However, approaching Internet-related legal issues in this manner is becoming increasingly untenable. Let us consider the following:

  • Tech companies feature prominently on lists ranking the world’s most powerful companies. For example, on Foreign Policy’s list of “25 Companies Are More Powerful Than Many Countries” ten of the listed companies are from the tech industry, and perhaps somewhat less importantly, six of the top ten companies on Forbes’ list of the world’s most valuable brands are tech companies (with the four top spots being Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook);
  • With its more than two billion users, Facebook alone has more ‘citizens’ than any country on earth; and
  • No other communications media comes even close to the Internet’s ability to facilitate cross-border interactions – interactions that may have legal implications.

While statistics may be used to prove just about anything, the message stemming from the above is clear and beyond intelligent dispute: cross-border Internet-related legal issues are central matters in society and need to be treated as such in public and private international law.

“Smartphone Screen” by TeroVesalainen. CC0 Public Domain via Pixabay.

A particularly relevant matter is that of Internet jurisdiction. The harms caused by the current dysfunctional approach that international law takes to jurisdiction are as palpable as they are diverse. The territoriality-centric approach to jurisdiction causes severe obstacles for law enforcement’s fight against both traditional and cyber-crime, it undermines the protection of important human rights, it amounts to an obstacle for e-commerce, and it creates uncertainties that undermine the stability online with an increased risk for cyber conflict as the result. Thus, Internet jurisdiction is one of our most important and urgent legal challenges. And we all need to get involved.

No more ‘regulatory sleep-walking’:

There are many notions regarding jurisdiction in general, and Internet jurisdiction in particular, that are widely relied upon in the academic community and beyond. The two key sources for those notions are the (in)famous 1927 Lotus case, and the widely cited, but poorly understood, Harvard Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime 1935 – both seen to put the supremacy of the territoriality principle beyond question. With a somnambulant-like acceptance, these authorities are treated as clear, exhaustive, and almighty.

However, those who have truly studied jurisdiction in detail generally take a different view. For example, Ryngaert and Mann have both questioned whether the Lotus decision remains good law.

A new paradigm:

I believe that we must move beyond the current territoriality focused paradigm of how we approach jurisdiction and have advanced an alternative jurisprudential framework for jurisdiction: In the absence of an obligation under international law to exercise jurisdiction, a state may only exercise jurisdiction where:

  1. There is a substantial connection between the matter and the state seeking to exercise jurisdiction;
  2. The state seeking to exercise jurisdiction has a legitimate interest in the matter; and
  3. The exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable given the balance between the state’s legitimate interests and other interests. That work is, however, just a starting point for further discussions.
“Office” by StartupStockPhotos. CC0 Public Domain via Pixabay.

Not just a matter for Internet lawyers:

Internet jurisdiction is not just a matter for Internet lawyers, it is not just a matter for the public international law crowd, and it is not just a matter for those inhabiting the domain of private international law – Internet jurisdiction is a key issue in all of these fields. And, importantly, it is a matter we will only be able to address when the experts from these fields join forces and approach jurisdiction in an open-minded manner.

To this, we may add that addressing Internet jurisdiction is not just a matter for the academic or legal community. It is for us all— industry, government, courts, international organizations, civil society, and the academic community— to help achieve useful change. Furthermore, those engaged in capacity-building initiatives must recognize that they need to incorporate capacity building in relation to a sound understanding of the jurisdictional challenges and solutions.

Much work lies ahead. But it is crucially important work and we must now turn our minds to these issues to which we, for far too long, have turned a blind eye.

Source: This article was published blog.oup.com Dan Svantesson

"Social networking" has been around forever. It's the simple act of expanding the number of people you know by meeting your friends' friends, their friends' friends and so on. In fact, many of us today use Twitter and Facebook to promote our existing and upcoming businesses. And people looking to connect with other business-associated contacts usually move to sites like LinkedIn, but one needs to understand that social media is beyond Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Blogs. After observing and running an analysis on hundreds of Social Networking sites I have listed down 40 most popular social networks across countries.

1. Facebook: To access Facebook.com, you must create an account on the site which is free. Facebook's terms of use state that members must be at least 13 years old with valid email ID's. After updating you're details, your Facebook profile is generated. Using Facebook.com you can:

  • Browse and join networks, which are organized into four categories: regions, colleges, workplaces and high schools.
  • Pull contacts from a Web-based e-mail account, into Facebook.com.
  • Find friends in several ways, including the search engine to look for a specific person and lot more.
  • Facebook has recently crossed 500 million users and is the most popular Social Networking site of the world.

2. MySpace: On MySpace, your social network starts growing from the first day. When you join MySpace, the first step is to create a profile. You then, invite friends to join there and search for your friends on already profiled on MySpace these friends become your initial Friend Space. Once the friendship is confirmed all the people in your friends' Friend Space become part of your network. In that sense, everyone on MySpace is in your Extended Network. As part of terms of MySpace, the user must be at least 14 years old to register.

3. Twitter: Twitter is a very simple service that is rapidly becoming one of the most talked-about social networking service providers. When you have a Twitter account, you can use the service to post and receive messages to a network of contacts, as opposed to send bulk email messages. You can build your network of contacts, and invite others to receive your Tweets, and can follow other members' posts. Twitter makes it easy to opt into or out of networks. Additionally, you can choose to stop following a specific person's feed.

4. LinkedIn: LinkedIn is an online social network for business professionals, which is designed specifically for professional networking, to help them find a job, discover sales leads, connect with potential business partners. Unlike most of the other social networks, LinkedIn does not focus on making friends or sharing media like photos, videos and music. To start using LinkedIn you need to register and create a profile page. To register to LinkedIn, you need to provide personal information. You can update the profile with your education and job details and a summary. Additionally, you can also give and receive recommendations from co-workers and bosses. There are more than 75 million professionals registered on LinkedIn.

5. Bebo: In the United Kingdom, Bebo is the second best social network. Bebo allows users to create social networking profiles for free. It offers many of the same features as other social networking sites. You can register a free account with Bebo and upload photos, videos and information. The site lets you connect with old friends and make new ones using a unique user interface. The site boasts users from more than a dozen countries, including the United States, Australia, Canada, Poland, France and Germany.

6. Friendster: Friendster was one of the first Web sites to bring it into mass culture. It was designed as a place to connect with friends, family, colleagues and new friends over the Internet. However, it went beyond just a one-way communication. Using Friendster, you can connect with friends and family, meet new people through the connections you already have, find people with similar interests, backgrounds or geographical locations, join groups by activity, school or interest, interact through message posts, games, blogs and application sharing, and share your details with the Internet community.

7. Hi5: Hi5 shares many similarities with many social network sites; however, it introduces some twists that make it worthwhile for people who love trying out new and interesting online communities. However, it is not one of the popular sites in the United States. This was a strategic move from the founder, therefore, Hi5 claims around 60 million members from more than 200 countries other than the US. One of the site's biggest transformations is the addition of many entertainment options, including games.

8. Habbo: The Habbo online community is inhabited by pixelated, cartoon-character alter egos. You can meet others in public rooms (nightclubs, restaurants, shops) and create private rooms for selected friends. Habbo employees heavily moderate the site, catering to its solid teen user base. Most of the users of Habbo are between the age group of 13 - 18 years. Although a major part of the users are from the U.S., Habbo social networks are very popular in places like the United Kingdom, Japan, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Finland and more.

9. NING: Ning is the leading online platform for the world's organizers, activists, and influencers to create social experiences that inspire action. It helps you create a safe and secure place online for like-minded people. Ning takes the idea of groups to a whole new level. The ability to create your own community makes Ning a great home away from home for organizations and groups looking to fill the social void.

10. Classmates: Classmates.com is different from most social networks, in the sense that most of its features are available to the premium member. The price for premium members depends on the length of the agreement - shorter-term results in a higher cost per month. Classmates.com is primarily used to reconnect with old classmates. The site features a search engine that lets you view other people who went to the same school you attended. Creating a basic Classmates.com profile is free and easy. However, most of the advanced features in Classmates.com are only available to paid users.

11. Tagged: Tagged is a blend of social networking features that MySpace and Facebook users will find very familiar. Tagged was designed to help users meet lots of new people with similar interests in a short amount of time. You can access and register directly or be invited by a friend to join Tagged. This is a free social network that allows you to view your friends' newly uploaded Tagged photo album. Tagged encourages its users to meet strangers based on shared interests, with the idea of growing your network to meet as many people as possible.

12. myYearbook: myYearbook, the best place to meet new people and one of the 25 most-trafficked sites in the United States. myYearbook has Flash-based games, and the games incorporate Lunch Money (the myYearbook virtual currency). It includes a virtual economy through which people can purchase of gifts which members send to each other. Lunch Money is also donated by members to their favourite charity. In 2010, myYearbook donated money to the Haiti Relief Fund to help victims of the earthquake in Haiti.

13. Meetup: Meetup is an online social networking portal that facilitates offline group meetings in various localities around the world. It makes it easy for anyone to organize a local group or find one of the thousands already meeting up face-to-face. More than 2,000 groups get together in local communities each day, each one with the goal of improving themselves or their communities.

14. MyLife: MyLife (formerly Reunion.com) is a social network service. MyLife can search over 60 social-networking sites and other information resources on the Web. MyLife searches the web to deliver accurate and timely results. Even in cases when you don't immediately find who you're looking for, MyLife continues searching and provides updates and alerts. MyLife suggests friends and contacts you may know based on your profile information and existing contacts. It also intimates you when someone else is looking for you. MyLife gives you a global view into the most popular sites your friends are part of, including LinkedIn, Facebook and MySpace as well as 50 other sites.

15. Flixster: Flixster is a social networking site for movie fans. Users can create their own profiles, invite friends, rate movies and actors, and post movie reviews as well. From the site, people can also get information about movies, read user-generated movie reviews and ratings, converse with other users, get movie showtimes, view popular celebrity photos, read the latest movie news, and view video clips from popular movies and TV shows. Flixster.com also operates leading movie applications on Facebook, MySpace, iPhone, Android, and BlackBerry.

16. myHeritage: MyHeritage is a family-oriented social network service and genealogy website. It allows members to create their own family websites, share pictures and videos, organize family events, create family trees, and search for ancestors. There are more than 15 million family trees and 91 million photos on the site, and the site is accessible in over 35 languages.

17. Multiply: Multiply is a vibrant social shopping destination, but faster and more convenient, where sellers and buyers interact. A user's network is made up of their direct contacts, as well as others who are closely connected to them through their first-degree relationships. Users are also encouraged to specify the nature of their relationship with one another, making it possible to share content based on relationship. Many shoppers in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam have made the Multiply Marketplace a favourite shopping destination.

18. Orkut: Orkut is a free social networking website where you can create a profile, connect with friends, maintain an online scrapbook and use site features and applications to share your interests and meet others. The prerequisite for logging on to Orkut is that the user must be over 18 years old. Currently, Orkut is the most popular in Brazil. The number of Orkut users in India is almost equivalent to those in its original home in the United States.

19. Badoo: Badoo is a multi-lingual social networking website. It is gaining popularity in emerging markets like Russia and Brazil. The site allows users to create profiles, send each other messages, and rate each other's profile pictures at no cost. However, features that are designed to make user profile more visible to other users are provided at a cost. Badoo includes geographic proximity feature that identifies users' locations based on analysis of their network connection. This lets users know if there are people near their current location who may wish to meet.

20. Gaia Online: Gaia Online is a mix of social networking and massive multiplayer online role-playing games. It is a leading online hangout for teens and young adults, and offers a wide range of features from discussion forums and virtual towns to fully customizable profiles and avatars. It provides a fun, social environment that inspires creativity and helps people make meaningful connections around shared interests such as gaming, arts and anime.

21. BlackPlanet: Initially, BlackPlanet was designed as a way for African-American professionals to network. Since then, it's grown and evolved as a site operating under the principles of Web 2.0. Members can read other members' blogs, watch music videos, chat with one another, look for new careers and discuss news. Though BlackPlanet is not restricted to any community, this site is more popular amongst African-American. This site helped Obama to connect to nearly 200,000 potential supporters.

22. SkyRock: SkyRock.com is a social networking site that offers its members free web space where they can create a blog, add a profile, and exchange messages with other registered members. The site also offers a specific space for members who create blogs showcasing their original musical compositions. SkyRock is very popular in France and French speaking markets including Switzerland and Belgium. The site is also available in English, German, Dutch and Spanish. It's very popular in the European Union.

23. PerfSpot: PerfSpot provides a web portal for people of any age, gender, or background to share their interests and favourite things on the web. PerfSpot currently publishes its site in 37 different languages, with comprehensive moderator team based in the U.S. and the Philippines that screens through up to a million pictures on a daily basis.

24. Zorpia: Zorpia.com is a social network that has a large international community. Zorpia's features include profile customization, networking features and an incredibly detailed search. Zorpia has an impressive music section featuring popular artists like Ashlee Simpson, Vanessa Hudgens, Alanis Morissette and more. You can purchase a Royal Membership for extra networking options such as an ad-free profile, extra profile design features and unlimited messaging.

25. Netlog: Netlog (formerly known as Facebox and Bingbox) is a Belgian social networking website specifically targeted at the European youth demographic. On Netlog, you can create your own web page with a blog, pictures, videos, events and much more to share with your friends. Netlog is pageview market leader in Belgium, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Romania and Turkey. In the Netherlands, Germany, France and Portugal, Netlog covers the second place. Pan European, Netlog is the market leader. Netlog is localized in over 25 languages, to enable users from around the world to access the network.

26. Tuenti: Tuenti is an invitation-only private social networking website. It has been referred to as the "Spanish Facebook", by many social network watchers. It is one of the largest social networking sites in Spain. It allows you to set up a profile, upload photos, link videos and connect and chat with friends. Many other utilities, such as the ability to create events, are also offered. From 2009, utilizing a simple interface, Tuenti user can change their language to Catalán, Basque, Galician, and English. Tuenti is also available as an iPhone App.

27. Nasza-Klasa.pl: nasza-klasapl is considered one of the largest and most used social networking sites in Poland. It primarily brings together school's students and alumni. The site is in polish therefore restricting its popularity only to Poland and polish speaking people. Nevertheless, it claims to be the most popular networking site in Poland, and therefore, has found its niche in the competitive social networking space. The site where one might say, new meets old, where the intractability is like Facebook, yet traditional with old styled forums.

28. IRC-Galleria: IRC Gallery has been one of the most popular social networking sites for over 10 years, in Finland; with over 5.5 lakh registered users, 90% of which use the site regularly. IRC-Galleria is popular within the age group of 18-22. To be able to create an account with this site, at least one of the uploaded images must be accepted by the administrator. While regular users can upload only up to 60 visible images, you have the option to upgrade to VIP status that enables you to upload 10,000 visible images. Using this site, users can communicate with other users, comments on photos, and join over a 100 communities.

29. StudiVZ: StudiVZ is the biggest social networking site in Germany. It is also popular in German-speaking countries like Switzerland and Austria. This site works as a student directory in particular for college and university students in Europe. The site allows students to maintain a personal page that containing their personal information like name, age, study subjects, interests, courses and group memberships (within StudiVZ).

30. Xing: Xing, (formally known as openBC/Open Business Club) is a professional networking tool. It is popular in countries like Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy and France. Xing is similar to LinkedIn and claims to have professionals from over 200 countries. Xing has two features Basic and Premium, depending on weather the user wants to use the site for free or at a cost. It is available in different languages including English, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Dutch, Chinese, Finnish, Swedish, Korean, Japanese, Russian, Polish, Turkish and Hungarian; French and German being the most popularly.

31. Renren: Renren (formerly called Xiaonei Network) is one of the largest social networking sites in China, and caters to people of Chinese origin. It is very popular amongst college students. Renren also has a WAP version, which users can access through mobile phones. It features an instant messaging service for its users. Users can use the same username to log in both Renren and Kaixin. Renren appeals more to Chinese college students who use internet cafes, while Kaixin001 targets Chinese white-collar workers who have internet access at work.

32. Kaixin001: Kaixin001 is a popular professional networking tool in China. The target audience for Kaixin's, are typically white-collar middle class who come from a first tier city. This site in China is extremely popular among people who work for multinational companies, ad agencies and other white collar companies. Kaixin001 has gained much more popularity since 2009, because social networking sites, such as Myspace, Facebook, Twitter and Youtube were blocked in China.

33. Hyves.nl: Hyves, pronounced hives (from beehives) is the largest social network in Netherlands, with many Dutch visitors and members. Hyves Payments and Hyves Games, allows you to play games and pay friends through the social network. Hyves provides usual amenities of a social networking site, including profiles, blogs, photos, and so on. 'Hyven' (Hyving) became a common word in Dutch, and is gaining popularity across Europe.

34. Millat Facebook: MillatFacebook is a Muslim-oriented social networking website. Originally launched in Pakistan, it has gained popularity in Arab counties as well. This site came into existence after Facebook was banned in Pakisthan. Millatfacebook offers video chat, bulletins, blogs, polls, shout box, and customization of profile page. Members can change the page CSS and design it on their own will.

35. Ibibo: Ibibo stands for iBuild, iBond. It is an Indian social networking site. It is an umbrella site that offers a variety of applications under its social network. The services offered include games, blogs, photo unlimited storage, mail, messenger, videos, free SMS service, mail, polls and surveys.

36. Sonico: Sonico is a free-access social networking website focused on the Latin American audience. You can do a to rage of things in this site including search and add friends, interact with friends over message, update their own personal profile, manage their privacy, upload photos and videos, organize events, play games with other users. Sonico, more importantly, let's its members more control over their profile by giving them three distinct profiles that the user can organize based on the need: a private profile, a public profile, and a professional profile. This site is popular in Latin America and other Spanish and Portuguese Speaking Regions.

37. Wer-kennt-wen: Wer-kennt-wen, is one of the most popular social networking website in Germany. It is by an invitation-only social networking website, and only for people over 14 years old. The site provides the user to write blogs, chat with friends, and write in their guestbook. It provides users a social community for people, to interact with anybody they want.

38. Cyworld: Cyworld is a South Korean social network service. It has had a big effect on Korea's Internet culture. Many renowned Korean socialites and celebrities have accounts where they post upcoming tours and works. Cyword has networks in South Korea, China, and Vietnam and is gaining popularity across Asia and the Pacific Island. Users have access to a profile page, photos, drawings and images uploading, an avatar, neighbourhoods, and clubs.

39. Mixi: Mixi is primarily for Japanese. Mixi offers options to meeting new people, send and receive messages, writing in a diary, read and comment on others' diaries, organize and join communities and invite their friends. The site requires users to own a Japanese cell phone which bars anyone who is not or has not been a resident of Japan.

40. iWiW: iWiW (abbreviation for International Who is Who) is a Hungarian social networking web service. The site is an invite-only website, where a user can provide personal information. Users can search for friends using the search tool. iWiW allows users to log in to external websites using their iWiW credentials. iWiW is also available for iPone and Android.

The list is tentative. You might want to add your thoughts to the same. Please feel free to share your opinions in the comment section below. I will soon revamp the list and take your suggestions into consideration.

 Source: This article was published socialmediatoday.com By Sorav

Search multiple social networks at the same time on this free website

What is it? A free search engine to help journalists find posts about certain topics on social networks.

How is it of use to journalists? Social media is becoming an increasingly powerful channel for sourcing stories, but with the number of platforms now around it's becoming more difficult to stay on top of the chatter.

It may be that you're looking for reactions on social about certain news events, or you might be trying to find eyewitnesses, photos or videos from the scene of a story.

With Social Searcher, you can search for keywords on multiple platforms at the same time.

The social networking search engine supports a wide variety of platforms, from Facebook and Twitter to Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, and YouTube.



You can save individual searches you may need to perform more often, and use advanced filters to help you find what you're looking for quicker.


search results social searcher
Screenshot of search results.

Social Searcher enables you to search based on 'post types', for example, and find results that include links, photos, videos or any combination of media.

Each search also comes with its own analytics dashboard, where you can see the most popular related hashtags, the overall sentiment of the posts (i.e. if the language denotes a positive view of the topic), or other keywords that are often featured alongside the terms used in your search.

Social Searcher is free to use for up to 100 searches a day, after which you can choose from a number of pricing options available.

These include additional features such as the ability to save individual posts, access web mentions of keywords, and use the 'monitoring' service.

'Monitoring' enables you to save the mentions history, access advanced analytics and export data as a CSV file.

Social Searcher started out in 2012 as an Android app allowing users to search through Facebook without logging in and has since expanded to become a comprehensive tool for finding posts on social media.

 Source: This article was published journalism.co.uk By Catalina Albeanu

IC Realtime introduces video search engine technology that will augment surveillance systems using analytics, natural language processing, and machine vision.

LAS VEGAS--()--PEPCOM at CES 2018 – IC Realtime, a leader in digital surveillance and security technology announces today the introduction of Ella, a new cloud-based deep-learning search engine that augments surveillance systems with natural language search capabilities across recorded video footage.

#helloella - @ICRealtime introduces Ella, a deep learning engine for #surveillance systems at #CES2018

Ella uses both algorithmic and deep learning tools to give any surveillance or security camera the ability to recognize objects, colors, people, vehicles, animals and more. Ella was designed with the technology backbone of Camio, a startup founded by ex-Googlers who realized there could be a way to apply search to streaming video feeds. Ella makes every nanosecond of video searchable instantly, letting users type in queries like “white truck” to find every relevant clip instead of searching through hours of footage. Ella quite simply creates a Google for video.

“The idea was born from a simple question: if we can search the entire internet in under a second, why can’t we do the same with video feeds,” said Carter Maslan, CEO of Camio. “IC Realtime is the perfect partner to bring this advanced video search capability to the global surveillance and security market because of their knowledge and experience with the needs of users in this space. Ella is the result of our partnership in fine-tuning the service for security applications.”

The average surveillance camera sees less than two minutes of interesting video each day despite streaming and recording 24/7. On top of that, traditional systems only allow the user to search for events by date, time, and camera type and to return very broad results that still require sifting, often taking hours of time.

Ella instead does the work for users to highlight the interesting events and to enable fast searches of their surveillance & security footage for the events they want to see and share. From the moment Ella comes online and is connected, it begins learning and tagging objects the cameras sees. The deep learning engine lives in the cloud and comes preloaded with recognition of thousands of objects like makes and models of cars; within the first minute of being online, users can start to search their footage.

Hardware agnostic, Ella also solves the issue of limited bandwidth for any HD streaming camera or NVR. Rather than push every second of recorded video to the cloud, Ella features interest-based video compression. Based on machine learning algorithms that recognize patterns of motion in each camera scene to recognize what is interesting within each scene, Ella will only record in HD when it recognizes something important. By learning from what the system sees, Ella can reduce false positives by understanding that a tree swaying in the wind is not notable while the arrival a delivery truck might be. Even the uninteresting events are still stored in a low-resolution time-lapse format, so they provide 24x7 continuous security coverage without using up valuable bandwidth.

“The video search capabilities delivered by Ella haven't been feasible in the security and surveillance industry before today,” said Matt Sailor, CEO for IC Realtime. “This new solution brings intelligence and analytics to security cameras around the world; Ella is a hardware agnostic approach to cloud-based analytics that instantly moves any connected surveillance system into the future.”

Ella works with both existing DIY and professionally installed surveillance and security cameras and is comprised of an on-premise video gateway device and the cloud platform subscription. Ella subscription pricing starts at $6.99 per month and increases with storage and analysis features needed for the particular scope of each project. To learn more about Ella, visit www.smartella.com.

For more information about IC Realtime please visit http://www.icrealtime.com.

For more information on Camio please visit https://camio.com.

About IC Realtime

Established in 2006, IC Realtime is a leading digital surveillance manufacturer serving the residential, commercial government, and military security markets. With an expansive product portfolio of surveillance solutions, IC Realtime innovates, distributes, and supports global video technology. Through a partnership with technology platform Camio, ICR created Ella, a cloud-based deep learning solution that augments surveillance cameras with natural language search capabilities. IC Realtime is revolutionizing video search functionality for the entire industry. IC Realtime is part of parent company IC Real Tech, formed in 2014 with headquarters in the US and Europe. Learn more at http://icrealtime.com

Connect with IC Realtime on Facebook at www.facebook.com/icrealtimeus or on Twitter at www.twitter.com/icrealtime.

Contacts

Caster Communications
Peter Girard
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Source: This article was published businesswire.com

A Google engineer has revealed that despite Gmail being introduced ten years ago, the vast majority of email account users are still not using one of Gmail’s best features. Speaking at the recent Enigma 2018 security conference, Grzegorz Milka, a software engineer for the tech giant, said that only ten percent of users – just 1 in 10 people – are bothering to turn on two-factor authentication.

This is a staggeringly low figure when one considers a few important things: Firstly, email accounts are the center of a digital web. When people forget passwords for third-party services – such as social media, online shopping, and digital payment accounts – it is often their Gmail account that serves as the recovery point.

In addition, research has revealed that people in the US are still not using password managers. This likely means that they are choosing easy passwords and similar passwords across various platforms. In fact, according to Pew Research Center, only 12 percent of Americans use a password manager – a very similar percentile to those using Gmail two factor (implying that it is the same security-conscious few).

Hacking Explosion

In recent years, hacking tools and hacks by “script kiddies” have been massively on the rise, leading to a global explosion in the number of attacks that are occurring. Furthermore, recent times have seen a number of serious cases involving huge amounts of hacked passwords being sold on the darknet.

On one occasion, over 25 million Gmail and Yahoo accounts were being sold online. Another report claimed that 200 million Yahoo accounts had appeared for sale on deep web marketplaces.

With so much publicity surrounding these monumental hacks, it seems ludicrous that people aren’t using two-factor auth. After all, it is the only thing that will protect a Gmail account from instant penetration should a hacker either acquire or brute-force an account’s password.

Not Compulsory

So, why isn’t Google forcing consumers to use two-factor authentication? Sadly, it would appear that Google fears losing consumers who literally can’t cope – or more likely don’t want to cope – with having to use the elevated security feature. Google’s software engineer implied that a large proportion of consumers are apathetic about digital security:

“The answer is usability. It’s about how many people would we drive out if we force them to use additional security.”

According to Google, over 10 percent of people claim to have trouble entering the four-digit authentication number that arrives via text or an authentication tool. This seems barmy, and, as far as I’m concerned, points to the real problem – laziness and generally bad education surrounding the vital necessity of this feature.

Should you be Using Two Factor Auth?

The answer to this question is yes. Your Gmail account isn’t secure until you enable two-factor authentication. It doesn’t matter whether you choose an SMS message, an authentication app, or a physical token like YubiKey (the most secure method) – but please do it now!

Doing so will stop anybody from being able to access your email account with the password alone. In practical terms, this means that a hacker will need your password and your phone itself to hack your account. Remember, hackers are likely located in a far-off location, possibly even overseas. So worrying that you might lose your phone – or that it might get stolen by a hacker – just isn’t a sensible reason to abstain. What’s more, two-factor auth is not difficult to set up and costs nothing.

Admittedly, if you do lose your phone you won’t be able to access your email account – because you won’t be able to receive the text code. This might put some users off, but it shouldn’t. The reality is that Google has systems in place just in case this happens.

That means you can disable access to the email account, revoke passwords for the email account, gain access to the email account yourself using a variety of methods (backup codes or a trusted computer), and turn off two-factor auth until you have got a new phone/sim card from your carrier.

What is Google Doing To Protect Users?

Luckily for consumers, awareness of low uptake levels for two-factor auth is making Google work harder to protect people. According to Google, hackers tend to behave in similar ways when they gain access to a victim’s account.

Firstly, they disable notifications. Next, they may drop in a filter to hide their activity. With this done, they tend to search for personal account information, intimate photos, bitcoin wallet correspondence, and other sensitive email data. If Google detects this kind of activity it will shut down the account temporarily to protect its owner.

In addition, last November Google published a detailed study explaining how hackers penetrate accounts and what consumers can do to protect themselves. Due to that study, Google is much more closely monitoring login location radius. This means people are being asked much more regularly to confirm a login was them. Again, in extreme cases, accounts are being frozen. Google believes it has already used the findings from its study to prevent hackers from penetrating 67 million Google accounts.

Despite these efforts, the fact remains that the best person to protect your email account is you. So please consider enabling two-factor auth, and tell your loved ones to do it too!

 Source: This article was published bestvpn.com By Ray Walsh

People who used the internet to get political news before the General Election were more likely to vote Labour, but people with a higher level of political knowledge were more likely to vote Conservative, according to new research on the dynamics of the 2017 vote.

Professors Harold Clarke, Matt Goodwin, Paul Whiteley and Marianne Stewart, election experts from the UK and the US, were commissioned by the BBC to analyze how online activity helped the Labour Party.

They found that, across the electorate and all age groups, “those who used the internet to get news about the general election were far more likely to have voted Labour”, while “those who used the internet less often to gather political news and information were much more likely to vote Conservative”.

Of those who used the internet “a great deal” to gather news about the general election, 61 percent voted for Labour and 21 percent voted Conservative. Conversely, 56 percent who said they used the internet “not at all” voted Conservative and 30 percent voted for Labour.

The researchers found this trend was true even after factors such as age, gender, social class, party identification, how people voted in the referendum and levels of education were taken into account. The internet election The researchers said: “The 2017 general election was the moment when the internet finally delivered on its long-awaited promise of having a big effect, both on how individual people voted and the overall outcome of the election.

“A flood of young voters, many of whom had relatively low levels of political knowledge, used the internet to get news about the general election. This was crucial for boosting support for Labour and Jeremy Corbyn, according to new research on the dynamics of the 2017 vote. “In recent years, there has been talk about the power of the internet to affect elections. Ahead of the 2017 general election, some pointed to a growth of pro-Labour websites and online forums as a potentially powerful weapon in Labour’s arsenal.”

“In recent years, there has been talked about the power of the internet to affect elections. Ahead of the 2017 general election, some pointed to a growth of pro-Labour websites and online forums as a potentially powerful weapon in Labour’s arsenal.” They added: “Turnout among people aged 18-29 was up by an estimated 19% on the previous general election in 2015.

“Our data show that both the decision to vote and the choices these young people made at the polls were associated with the volume of news about the election that they consumed online.”

Political knowledge makes people more likely to vote Conservative

The researchers also tested respondents’ political knowledge asking them to verify eight statements, such as “The minimum voting age for UK general elections is now 16 years of age”, “The chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for setting interest rates in the UK”, and “The unemployment rate in the UK is currently less than 5 percent”.

The found that voters’ understanding of politics affected how they voted.

“If survey respondents were frequent internet users but did not know much about politics they tended to vote Labour,” the researchers said. “In contrast, if they weren’t internet savvy but knew a fair bit about politics, they tended to vote Conservative.”

“If survey respondents were frequent internet users but did not know much about politics they tended to vote Labour,” the researchers said. “In contrast, if they weren’t internet savvy but knew a fair bit about politics, they tended to vote Conservative.”

“These effects held across all age groups for both Labour and the Conservatives, with the exception of pensioners in the case of the Tories.

“This means that those effects weren’t caused by the age of the respondent, which at first sight is the obvious explanation for differences in internet usage among the voters.”              

Voters’ views on party leaders were strongly affected by internet use and political knowledge, the research found.

“Even after we take account of a whole host of other things, like age and income, people with low political knowledge who used the internet to get their election news tended to like Jeremy Corbyn and dislike Theresa May,” they said.

“For example, among those who said they used the internet “a great deal”, the average score for Jeremy Corbyn on a 0 (“really dislike”) to 10 (“really like”) scale is 6.4, whereas among those who said they did not use the internet at all, his average score is much lower, only 3.4.

“The pattern for Theresa May is the opposite: her average score among those who used the internet a great deal is 2.9, whereas, among those who did not use the net, her average is considerably higher, at 5.3.”

Of the 25 most-shared web articles about the UK election, almost all were in support of Labour and Jeremy Corbyn, separate research conducted in June by the web analytics company Kaleida found.

Source: This article was published inews.co.uk By Pascale Hughes

Page 1 of 33

Upcoming Events

There are no up-coming events

Get Exclusive Research Tips in Your Inbox

Receive Great tips via email, enter your email to Subscribe.
Please wait
Internet research courses

airs logo

AIRS is the world's leading community for the Internet Research Specialist and provide a Unified Platform that delivers, Education, Training and Certification for Online Research.

Subscribe to AIRS Newsletter

Receive Great tips via email, enter your email to Subscribe.
Please wait

Follow Us on Social Media