Elon Musk’s X (Twitter) and Mark Zuckerberg’s Threads have been dominating headlines across the world in recent months. That’s no surprise, given how significant the events at both companies have been.
While other big stories have been briefly eclipsed, they haven’t gone away. The TikTok ban was the talk of the world at the start of the summer, and this has quietly rumbled on while the X and Meta rivalry captured our attention.
Just a few months ago, it seemed like a nationwide US TikTok ban was inevitable, with Montana the first state to pass legislation in an effort to curtail the use of the app. Things have quietened down somewhat since then, but US authorities are still debating the issue, and TikTok is facing new restrictions in additional countries around the world.
The US Committee on Foreign Investment has been locked in talks about the future of TikTok in the country, with detractors citing fears that the app could mask covert Chinese surveillance activity.
After Montana passed its landmark bill, many believed that would kickstart a domino effect that would see the end of TikTok in the US. However, much to the relief of affiliates, brands, and content creators who rely on the app, this didn’t transpire.
Outside of the US, TikTok is continuing to come under fire, with EU officials advising that all governments ban the use of the app on official devices.
A report published in Australia has laid bare the risks posed by TikTok, as well as the Chinese social media app WeChat. In response, Australian authorities have proposed new regulations that would demand foreign-owned apps take steps to adhere to local data privacy laws. The proposition also recommends that TikTok, which is already banned on Australian government official devices, should also be banned on the devices of government contractors.
Meanwhile, Senegal has taken steps to ban the app, with authorities maintaining that TikTok is used to spread anti-government messages and inappropriate content. While the fears of the Senegalese government aren’t concerned with data malpractice, they are still indicative of an ongoing attitude shift towards TikTok that is making the app’s long-term viability look increasingly perilous.
What does all this mean for affiliate marketers and influencers on TikTok? Despite the negative publicity, TikTok is booming and is forecast to reach 900 million users in 2024. TikTok remains one of the most important tools at any digital marketer’s disposal, it can be used to craft compelling content and reach huge audiences.
However, the threat of a wider ban in Western countries still exists. This means that affiliates and content creators must have contingency plans in place. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket, as the old adage goes. Ensure you maintain a presence on other social platforms in case TikTok is suddenly out of the picture. This way, you won’t lose access to your entire customer base, and you’ll be able to mitigate the damage to your business.
[ad_2]
Source link
A water company chief has blamed rising numbers of people working from home for introducing a hosepipe ban that will hit households across Kent and Sussex next week.
South East Water, which supplies drinking water to 2.2 million consumers, will impose the first temporary restrictions of the summer on Monday to homeowners in the counties.
The decision came after thousands of homes and businesses in the region were left with no tap water or low pressure for up to a week, earlier this month.
The outages, caused by a burst water main and several leaks in the network, also forced several schools to close their doors.
Now David Hinton, South East Water’s chief executive, is claiming it was customers’ lifestyle changes which put its treatment works under too much pressure.
He said the rise in working from home was a “key factor” behind the decision to implement a hosepipe ban.
‘Demand for treated mains water’
In a letter to customers on Thursday (June 22), Mr Hinton wrote: “The rise of working from home has increased drinking water demand in commuter towns by around 20 per cent over a very short period, testing our existing infrastructure.”
He also blamed a severe lack of rainfall and prolonged hot weather for placing extra pressure on local supply and added: “Our reservoir and aquifer stocks of raw water, essential to our water supply but not ready to be used, are in a good position. However, demand for treated mains water, which takes time to process and deliver, was greater than we could meet.”
But local councillors claim a hosepipe ban would not have been necessary had South East Water improved its infrastructure.
Johanna Howell, the Conservative councillor for Wadhurst in East Sussex, one of the towns worst affected by the outages, said: “Such a move should not be necessary if the correct investment were made to cater for likely demand.”
‘Failed yet again’
While Nus Ghani, MP for Wealden, said she has made “urgent representations” to the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to put pressure on South East Water to upgrade its infrastructure.
She accused the water firm of “failing” its customers, adding: “South East Water has failed yet again and it seems that the weather is never right for them to cope with demand.”
On Wednesday, Defra announced that it is working with South East Water to ensure it is taking necessary steps to minimise the impact on customers.
A Government spokesperson said: “Upgrading infrastructure is key to ensuring a clean, plentiful water supply now and for future generations – and we are clear that water companies must invest in new supply infrastructure and step up their efforts to manage demand.”
[ad_2]
Source link
The US state of California is considering a new Journalism Preservation Act, the most relevant aspect of which would force Meta to pay for news content that users are sharing on the Facebook and Instagram platforms. As such, Meta has threatened to ban news content in the state.
The Journalism Preservation Act intends to allow publishers, particularly small publishers, a means of making money on Meta’s social media platforms. Californian lawmakers argue that Facebook in particular benefits from news content for greater engagement, and therefore gains revenue. Ultimately saying that Meta, therefore, needs to pay for that privilege.
However, Meta disagrees, pointing out that very little revenue is gained from publishers when compared to what publishers get from Facebook.
Meta’s Andy Stone said of the Journalism Preservation Act on Twitter: “If the [act] passes, we will be forced to remove news from Facebook and Instagram rather than pay into a slush fund that primarily benefits big, out-of-state media companies under the guise of aiding California publishers.
“The bill fails to recognize that publishers and broadcasters put their content on our platform themselves and that substantial consolidation in California’s local news industry came over 15 years ago, well before Facebook was widely used. It is disappointing to see that California lawmakers appear to be prioritising the best interests of the nation and international media companies over their own constituents.”
Meta has already gone through similar bans with the Australian News Bargaining Code 2021, and the Canadian Online News Act.
[ad_2]
Source link
Video-sharing platform TikTok has filed a federal lawsuit over the pending ban of the app in the state of Montana. As we reported last week, the Montana ban is set to come into effect on January 1st, 2024.
TikTok has, unsurprisingly, reacted to the news, and the company has moved forward with a lawsuit designed to challenge and overturn the decision. According to TikTok, the ban is unconstitutional and is in direct violation of the first amendment, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
An announcement on the TikTok Comms Twitter account confirmed that the company would be challenging the Montana ban, stating that it is pursuing legal means to both safeguard its business and protect users in the state of Montana.
The company went on to assert that it is confident about the challenge, claiming that its case is based on facts and evidence. This could suggest that TikTok believes the ban is politically or ideologically motivated, rather than being based on anything concrete.
Pressure on TikTok has mounted in recent months, particularly regarding how it collects, stores, and manages user data. The app has already been banned in India, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, while its use has been banned on official devices in the governments of the US, UK, Australia, and most of the EU.
A blanket ban in Western countries seemed unlikely until the news emerged about the Montana ban. The ban is said to be designed to protect people in Montana from covert Chinese data gathering, an activity in which TikTok is widely believed to be complicit.
The popular video-sharing platform has vehemently denied the accusations, building dedicated US data processing centres in an effort to allay the fears of Western governments.
However, it would seem that TikTok’s efforts have been in vain. The Montana ban represents a significant shift in attitude and will be the first Western territory to implement a blanket ban that prohibits both government officials and citizens from using the app.
While citizens found to be using the app after the ban will not be prosecuted, TikTok itself could be faced with fines of $10,000 per day if it is in breach of the new rules. Whether TikTok’s lawsuit is successful or not, the company will likely face increasing pressure and more stringent sanctions as its data handling policies come under further scrutiny.
[ad_2]
Source link
TikTok has come under mounting pressure the world over in recent months, as governments cite fears about the video-sharing app’s privacy and data handling procedures.
The app is a modern social media phenomenon, it has millions of users across the world and holds enormous sway over popular culture. However, this hasn’t stopped authorities from cracking down on the platform; TikTok has been banned from government devices in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and a majority of the EU.
Afghanistan, India, Iran, and Pakistan have taken things one step further, banning the app outright and deeming it to be both unsafe and promoting inappropriate content.
Times have been tough for TikTok, CEO Shou Zi Chew was grilled by the US Congress over the app’s privacy issues back in March, and there is an ever-present threat of the app facing a blanket ban in major Western countries.
A significant portion of TikTok’s user base is in Western countries, so a blanket ban would be extremely damaging for the company. Unfortunately for TikTok, a blanket ban appears to be moving ever closer, with Montana confirming that it will be the first US state to completely prohibit the app.
On Wednesday, May 17th, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed a bill that will ban TikTok in the state completely. The law will apply to government officials and regular citizens, none of whom will be able to access or use the popular video-sharing app.
According to reports, the legislation is intended to protect residents of Montana from Chinese intelligence gathering, with TikTok widely perceived as a national security threat.
Montana has been leading the line for the US TikTok crackdown, the ban has been discussed by officials and legislators in the state since last month. However, this represents a significant step forward and is indicative of increasingly tense relations between the US and China.
What TikTok and the marketers and content creators who rely on the platform will be worried about is other states and jurisdictions following suit. The Montana TikTok ban could kick-start a domino effect and could see further bans implemented across the US and beyond.
The ban, which is set to take effect on the 1st of January 2024, will impose fines of $10,000 per day if TikTok is found to be operating within the state. Citizens using the app after the ban takes effect, however, will not face penalties.
[ad_2]
Source link
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show personalised ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
[ad_2]
Source link
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show personalised ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
[ad_2]
Source link
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show personalised ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
[ad_2]
Source link
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show personalised ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
[ad_2]
Source link
Arguing that eliminating affiliate marketing would lead to mass-market advertising from black-market sports betting operators and would stunt the ability to share responsible gaming information, a diverse group of legal sports betting stakeholders on Monday urged the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to change a regulation ahead of its projected March 10 digital launch.
The MGC appears to be pointing toward amending the rule, at least to allow for Cost Per Action (CPA) deals between affiliates and operators. Affiliate marketers work under either CPA deals, through which they are paid per customer acquired through an affiliate partner, or revenue share agreements.
Commissioners asked their legal team to develop options to amend the regulation, which currently bans partnerships between operators and affiliates, and the commission decided to juggle its schedule to address the regulation on Wednesday and/or Thursday.
Only two legal U.S. jurisdictions — Connecticut and Illinois — currently have restrictions on affiliate partnerships, and none ban them outright. Connecticut regulations prohibit partnerships that include the CPA model, and Illinois regulations prohibit deals based on revenue sharing.
Better Collective, the owner of Sports Handle, US Bets, and other sports betting media properties in the U.S., banded together with competitors Catena and CDG (Gambling.com) to lobby for a change to Regulation 256. The main discussion points were how affiliates provide a service by educating and informing consumers, that they only market to those already interested in participating in wagering, and that banning affiliate partnerships would ultimately give rise to the black market.
Affiliates help, don’t hurt
Seven digital operators are poised to launch in Massachusetts on March 10, meaning that there is a tight timeline for a decision, as operators and affiliates must solidify deals and complete other administrative tasks before the partnerships are active. The three media companies that participated all have deals in place with many major operators in other jurisdictions.
BetMGM, DraftKings, and FanDuel were among the operators who participated in the roundtable and also advocated for the partnerships.
Operators are already taking action based on the regulation as written. Caesars Sportsbook has sent a letter to affiliates saying that it will not work with affiliates in the market given the current ban.
Executives from Better Collective, Catena, and CDG collectively said that CPA deals account for about 90% of their deals, in part because those types of deals are “easier to track,” said Max Bischel, vice president of U.S. business at Gambling.com Group. Bischel also told the commission that the media companies “are not mainstream media, so we’re not [reaching] an audience that is underage” and that the three media companies account for 30% of betting customers sent to legal sportsbooks.
Katie McCord, legal counsel for Better Collective, explained to commissioners that the media companies participate in “pull” advertising, meaning they cater to consumers already interested in a product, vs. “push” advertising, which is more broad and is introducing consumers to products. She also shared how the “legal industry will lose” without affiliate deals and referred to the current Massachusetts rules as “commercially unviable.”
Commissioners discussed the possibility of altering the rule to allow CPA advertising but potentially continue to prohibit revenue-share models. While the operators at Monday’s meetings would be amenable to such a compromise, it seems clear that smaller companies, like Betr — which has been approved for a standalone mobile license in Massachusetts — could be at a disadvantage in that scenario.
“Revenue share might make sense for smaller companies or new entrants that may not have multi-million dollar budgets and couldn’t compete,” Bischel said.
Better Collective’s Karl Pugh agreed, saying that for those on the “lower end of the spectrum on the marketing side, revenue share is critical.”
A misunderstanding at hand?
Similar to the proposed federal ban on all sports betting advertising, the Massachusetts roundtable brought together a diverse group of stakeholders, including responsible gambling consultant Brianne Doura-Schawohl, who started her career in Massachusetts. Doura-Schawohl also pointed to the importance of “pull” advertising as only being directed to “verified consumers who want that information” and said that the real issues the commission should be concerned with center around social media advertising directed to the broader market, billboards, or advertising in more mainstream media.
While she said that she doesn’t believe that any state has “gotten it right” yet, she did point to Ohio as a leader in responsible gambling. She said that Massachusetts has many best practices already in its rules, but it may have gone too far with this one.
“I do think this may have been one of those misunderstandings about what is really going to achieve success in protecting the market,” she told commissioners.
The commissioners peppered Doura-Schawohl and others with questions and showed a clear interest in reassessing the rule.
Commissioner Jordan Maynard said the commission “strives to strike a balance” in all of its tasks, while Commissioner Eileen O’Brien suggested that the commission “might have missed the mark.”
[ad_2]
Source link