Twitter joins trend premieres own stories named Fleets: Famous stories have claimed another social network. Facebook, Instagram and recently on Linkedin, these land on Twitter, obviously with their own peculiarities.
Under the name of Fleets, Twitter has launched this functionality that is basically a temporary tweet that lasts about 24 hours and with which they intend to encourage the conversations of the social network and motivate those users who do not actively participate in the talks, can encourage themselves to try this feature.
"We have seen that users with Fleets— it is a feature that until now was in the testing phase-speak more on Twitter, since they are more comfortable when it comes to expressing their opinions and feelings," they explain from the company.
As for its functionality, Fleets appear at the top of the application and here you can see the profiles of the accounts that are followed.
As for the content that can enter this feature, users can post whatever they want: text, tweets, reactions or videos and even the wallpaper and text options.
Twitter joins trend premieres own stories named Fleets
Finally, it should be noted that anyone who follows You can see these posts and if you have the profile open, anyone who has a Twitter account can do so, so it can become an extra tool to gain more followers.
Of course, if you do not have it in your iOS or Android app at the moment, don't worry: they are deploying the feature, so it's a matter of hours that you can use Fleet on your mobile without problems.
Twitter joins trend premieres own stories named Fleets
Canyoning, Water Trekking, Coasteering, Via Ferrata, Trekking and Orientation Circuits: ADVENTURE GIRONA
What does Spain want a digital Bill of rights for: the debate between whether it is "propaganda" or whether it will be an effective roadmap for future regulations
Spain already has a draft of its first digital Bill of Rights.
The document is now available here, and will continue to be available until next 4 December, the date on which the public exhibition period will end during which citizens can submit amendments, suggestions or proposals to be included or withdrawn from the writing.
It is not a rule, a bill or any other type of regulatory document. It is not a'digital Constitution'. It is neither more nor less than a roadmap to which this government and the next ones will be able to adhere when regulating various aspects of the digital world. It has been made by the State Secretariat for digitalization and artificial intelligence led by Carme Artigas with the collaboration of 18 experts as advisors.
It has up to 25 headings that review issues as diverse as the right to rectification in digital media or the guarantee of the pseudonym, the possibility of surfing the net under a pseudonym. The preparation of the Charter is also one of the main commitments of the executive for this legislature, which already included it in its strategy of digital Spain 2025.
The objective of the Charter is "to propose ways to ensure respect for shared values also in the digital environment". "With it, Spain wants to continue in a position of international vanguard in the protection of the rights of citizens", defends the Ministry of Economic Affairs in a press release sent this Tuesday morning.
But not all experts see it that way. Some lawyers specializing in new technologies denounce that this letter is a purely "aesthetic" movement of the government and that it can end up on wet paper.
Sergio Carrasco, a lawyer specializing in technology law at Fase Consulting, and Carlos Sánchez Almeida, legal director of the platform in defense of freedom of information (PDLI), highlight the same idea. "This Charter is not a normative instrument. It does not give new rights. What we have now is what we already had. It reflects rights that are already contemplated in other laws, such as the Organic Law on Data Protection or the Civil Code."
"We have digital rights since 1978, in a rule called the Constitution and that is interpreted by judges, adapting to new social networks," says Sánchez Almeida. "We should look at the Constitution and determine whether it needs to be amended or not."
Carrasco and Sánchez Almeida do agree on one thing with Borja Adsuara, a consultant and also a lawyer, as well as part of the expert committee that has advised the government to prepare this letter. It is not a norm, it is not a legislative document: its drafting and approval is in the hands of the courts. Not from a board of advisors.
"As a propaganda text, which is what it is, it is very good. But if what is really intended is to regulate the fundamental rights of the internet, the procedure is to draft an organic law or propose a constitutional reform, which I suppose that in that sarao they will not want to get into", continues Almeida.
The legal director of the PDLI is very concerned about what this digital Bill of Rights introduces in its heading 13. This paragraph stops short of explaining how requests for rectification to online media should be, something that is already regulated without distinguishing between print or digital media. In addition, it opens the door to ambiguity by referring to "those responsible for the media and digital environments". What is a digital environment?
Almeida does not know what that text comes to. "I don't know on the basis of what international standards it is intended to regulate, but from my point of view, anything other than preparing an organic bill and taking it to a parliament is a toast to the sun."
Carrasco, for his part, continues with the idea that it is a "very aesthetic"instrument. "It works as a statement of intent, but oddly enough... to be a purely aesthetic instrument, you don't risk too much either," he laments.
"If it were just aesthetic they could have gone much further into issues of freedom of expression, or into issues of encryption. They could have taken a different tone, because they seem to want to maintain that of a standard." Carrasco also explains that, even if he does not intend it, any legal document that consults the Digital Bill of Rights can infer, by its construction and drafting, that it is a legislative document. And far from it.
Under heading 23, the Charter focuses on the rights that citizens will have in relation to artificial intelligence, and contemplates the principles of auditability of algorithms. "The right to algorithmic non-discrimination must be guaranteed", and "individuals have the right not to be the subject of a decision based solely on automated decision-making processes".
However, Carrasco states that nothing is mentioned when an automated decision by algorithm is carried out outside the field of artificial intelligence. For example, when applying for a grant. "You have to have the right to know the code that decides whether you are entitled to a benefit or aid or not."
The consultant from Fase Consulting also regrets that the charter, although not its original purpose, further separates the physical world from the digital world. The document, in its presentation —which you can read here— warns that"it is not about discovering digital rights pretending that they are something different from the fundamental rights already recognized, or that new technologies and the digital ecosystem are, by definition, a source of new rights".
However, Carrasco is struck by the right to digital inheritance introduced in Section 7 of the Charter. "What about access to networks and User Content? He says that a distinction should not be made, but they are talking to me about digital inheritance as if it were an element to take into account, other than the goods that can be inherited: it clashes one thing with the other".
"It doesn't matter if we're in the real world or digital. The distinction is nothing more than contrived. To digital goods, when a person dies, the regulations that correspond to an inheritance will have to be applied," he says.
Borja Adsuara, lawyer also specialist in technology law, is part of this summer's committee of experts who have advised the preparation of this digital Bill of Rights.
He shares the criticisms of his colleagues, but to some extent. He acknowledged that it was indeed a road map and not a legal document: the advisers were not parliamentarians. Adsuara recognizes 20 years in the field of Technology Law. But now you live "with intensity". "AI, biases, and even everything that is to come, such as neurodegenerations...".
"Does it not have a normative value? No. So what value does it have? That of an initiative that not only includes the contributions of the experts who are part of the committee, but of the whole society. And force something? Well, no. But once the Digital Bill of Rights has been promoted, it is one more argument to use it, and to force this government and the future to change laws to continue to conform to what the text says", he raises.
Adsuara trench that the committee of experts did not want to make any "digital Constitution". "We are not constituents. What we want is for our Constitution to be effectively applied in the digital environment. This is only one way of saying how the exercise of the rights already provided for in the Constitution should be guaranteed."
"Does a digital Bill of Rights worsen or improve the previous situation? I think nothing gets worse. Nor the improvement. But it clarifies things. Puts debates on the table", ditch.