Connect with us


The social media news you’ve been missing



media update’s Taylor Goodman is here to keep you clued up on your favorite social media platforms’ latest advancements.

WhatsApp group admins may be criminally liable for sharing fake news in South Africa

The news: WhatsApp group administrators can now face jail time if they knowingly share fake news on the platform. As sharing fake news in relation to COVID-19 is a crime according to South Africa’s disaster regulations, violating this law could lead to six months in jail. This penalty may also apply to admins that are aware that false information is being shared on their group. 

According to Business Insider, it has to be clear that this misinformation is being spread with malicious intent — and the administrator needs to be conscious that this information is false. 

Why it’s making headlines: WhatsApp is a breeding ground for fake news and most people know someone who shares spam on Whatsapp on a daily basis — that misinformation spreads, and it spreads fast

The spread of fake news can be detrimental to us all during this pandemic, so it is commendable that the South African government and WhatsApp are enforcing serious measures to prevent this.  

Instagram launches media sharing feature: Co-watching

The news: Instagram has been making a serious effort to promote social distancing and staying in quarantine — from its stay-at-home and donation stickers for Instagram stories to its latest update, co-watching. This update will allow users to browse their Instagram feeds with their friends while on a video chat.

Why it’s making headlines: As people will be self-isolating this will be a fun and interactive way for users to pass the time.

As video communication has skyrocketed with apps like Zoom and Hangouts, Instagram decided to roll out their version sooner than planned. Co-watching will make a routine activity like scrolling through your Instagram feed more engaging as users will be able to share content with their friends.

See also  Rapchat tunes into $2.3M as its music-making app hits 7M users

Pinterest’s CEO plans to launch a self-reporting COVID-19

The news: Pinterest’s co-founder and CEO Ben Silbermann has teamed up with CRISPR gene-editing pioneer and MIT/Harvard Broad Institute member Dr. Feng Zhang to build the How We Feel App.

This app is free to download for Android and iOS users and makes it easy for users to report on their current state of health daily. If they are feeling unwell, they are asked about the symptoms they are experiencing, whether they have been tested for COVID-19 and if they are self-isolating. This information is then shared with doctors, healthcare professionals and scientists.

Why it’s making headlines: With many people working to flatten the curve, any attempt to ease the blow of COVID-19 is making headlines. How We Feel has the potential to track the progression and spread of the pandemic, allowing experts to gain insight into Coronavirus and identify any infection hotspots.

The project is also independently built and a non-profit that promises to donate a meal to Feeding America every time someone downloads the app for the first time.

LinkedIn makes recruitment tools free for essential businesses

The news: Popular business and employment app LinkedIn is doing its bit in lending a helping hand during the COVID-19 pandemic by offering free job posts to those working in essential services.

Those working in healthcare, supermarkets, warehousing and freight delivery services are eligible for free job listings on the platform and additional promotion to candidates that are highly qualified through an ‘urgently hiring’ category.

See also  DuckDuckGo Study Finds More People Would Use Google Alternatives if Given a Choice

Why it’s making headlines: As LinkedIn generates most of its revenue through job posts, it is bound to make headlines that they are sacrificing this capital for the greater good.

Hospitals, healthcare organisations and essential workers worldwide have been overwhelmed by the demand for their services since the surge of COVID-19, and LinkedIn is working to ease their burden and reduce the stress placed on these frontline service workers during this trying time.

According to SocialMediaToday, making these job listings free will “help expedite efforts to fill roles, providing key support” and in turn, will help us fight back against COVID-19.

Facebook launches Community Help internationally

The news: Facebook has made its Community Help feature accessible to users on a global scale. This feature has been rolled out as a part of Facebook’s digital strategy to ease the burden of COVID-19.

The feature allows users to connect with each other to request help or lend a hand to those struggling at the hand of coronavirus. It also enables users to donate to non-profit organisations aimed at aiding Coronavirus victims. It has previously been used during terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

Why it’s making headlines: This is the first time Facebook will be launching Community Help internationally, making it available in the US, Canada, France, UK and Australia. This is also the first time that the feature will be used to support users during a health pandemic.

Facebook’s Community Help feature will be accessible via their COVID-19 information center found on top of the news feed. Here, users are able to access verified health information and curated, informative posts.

Google donates $6.5-million to fact-checking organizations to prevent spread of misinformation on social media

The news: In the fight against COVID-19, the spread of misinformation is public enemy number one. In order to combat this pandemic, society needs to know exactly what the virus is, how it is spread and how to prevent catching it. Despite this, the spread of fake news is still rife on social media.

See also  Meta Outlines Policy Requirements for Businesses Looking to Advertise and Sell on its Platforms

This makes Google’s donation to outlets like The International Fact-Checking Network, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and First Draft so meaningful.

These organisations are fact-checking and nonprofits that prevent the spread of misinformation relating to the Coronavirus. According to Social Media Today, this donation will assist in boosting the capacity of fact-checkers and amplifying authoritative voices.

Why it’s making headlines: As Google is usually the first place people go to verify information, it is meaningful that they would go to these lengths to ensure that the information their users receive is verified.

The implementation of this fact-checking system will also be particularly useful on social media, where fake news and misinformation is too easily accessible and spreads like wildfire.

Are there any breaking social media news stories that you think we missed out on? Let us know in the comments section below.

You’ve reached the end of what we could only assume to be an amazing article! Instead of having to search for our stories in the future, why not get them delivered straight to your inbox? Subscribe to our newsletter here.

Want to catch up on more important social media news? Be sure to check out Social media news you missed: March recap

*Image courtesy of Vecteezy

Read More

Continue Reading


Google December Product Reviews Update Affects More Than English Language Sites? via @sejournal, @martinibuster



Google’s Product Reviews update was announced to be rolling out to the English language. No mention was made as to if or when it would roll out to other languages. Mueller answered a question as to whether it is rolling out to other languages.

Google December 2021 Product Reviews Update

On December 1, 2021, Google announced on Twitter that a Product Review update would be rolling out that would focus on English language web pages.

The focus of the update was for improving the quality of reviews shown in Google search, specifically targeting review sites.

A Googler tweeted a description of the kinds of sites that would be targeted for demotion in the search rankings:

“Mainly relevant to sites that post articles reviewing products.

Think of sites like “best TVs under $200″.com.

Goal is to improve the quality and usefulness of reviews we show users.”


Continue Reading Below

Google also published a blog post with more guidance on the product review update that introduced two new best practices that Google’s algorithm would be looking for.

The first best practice was a requirement of evidence that a product was actually handled and reviewed.

The second best practice was to provide links to more than one place that a user could purchase the product.

The Twitter announcement stated that it was rolling out to English language websites. The blog post did not mention what languages it was rolling out to nor did the blog post specify that the product review update was limited to the English language.

See also  Daily Crunch: Twitter threads are getting easier

Google’s Mueller Thinking About Product Reviews Update

Screenshot of Google's John Mueller trying to recall if December Product Review Update affects more than the English language

Screenshot of Google's John Mueller trying to recall if December Product Review Update affects more than the English language

Product Review Update Targets More Languages?

The person asking the question was rightly under the impression that the product review update only affected English language search results.


Continue Reading Below

But he asserted that he was seeing search volatility in the German language that appears to be related to Google’s December 2021 Product Review Update.

This is his question:

“I was seeing some movements in German search as well.

So I was wondering if there could also be an effect on websites in other languages by this product reviews update… because we had lots of movement and volatility in the last weeks.

…My question is, is it possible that the product reviews update affects other sites as well?”

John Mueller answered:

“I don’t know… like other languages?

My assumption was this was global and and across all languages.

But I don’t know what we announced in the blog post specifically.

But usually we try to push the engineering team to make a decision on that so that we can document it properly in the blog post.

I don’t know if that happened with the product reviews update. I don’t recall the complete blog post.

But it’s… from my point of view it seems like something that we could be doing in multiple languages and wouldn’t be tied to English.

And even if it were English initially, it feels like something that is relevant across the board, and we should try to find ways to roll that out to other languages over time as well.

So I’m not particularly surprised that you see changes in Germany.

But I also don’t know what we actually announced with regards to the locations and languages that are involved.”

Does Product Reviews Update Affect More Languages?

While the tweeted announcement specified that the product reviews update was limited to the English language the official blog post did not mention any such limitations.

See also  Rapchat tunes into $2.3M as its music-making app hits 7M users

Google’s John Mueller offered his opinion that the product reviews update is something that Google could do in multiple languages.

One must wonder if the tweet was meant to communicate that the update was rolling out first in English and subsequently to other languages.

It’s unclear if the product reviews update was rolled out globally to more languages. Hopefully Google will clarify this soon.


Google Blog Post About Product Reviews Update

Product reviews update and your site

Google’s New Product Reviews Guidelines

Write high quality product reviews

John Mueller Discusses If Product Reviews Update Is Global

Watch Mueller answer the question at the 14:00 Minute Mark

[embedded content]

Continue Reading


Survey says: Amazon, Google more trusted with your personal data than Apple is




MacRumors reveals that more people feel better with their personal data in the hands of Amazon and Google than Apple’s. Companies that the public really doesn’t trust when it comes to their personal data include Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram.

The survey asked over 1,000 internet users in the U.S. how much they trusted certain companies such as Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon to handle their user data and browsing activity responsibly.

Amazon and Google are considered by survey respondents to be more trustworthy than Apple

Those surveyed were asked whether they trusted these firms with their personal data “a great deal,” “a good amount,” “not much,” or “not at all.” Respondents could also answer that they had no opinion about a particular company. 18% of those polled said that they trust Apple “a great deal” which topped the 14% received by Google and Amazon.

However, 39% said that they trust Amazon  by “a good amount” with Google picking up 34% of the votes in that same category. Only 26% of those answering said that they trust Apple by “a good amount.” The first two responses, “a great deal” and “a good amount,” are considered positive replies for a company. “Not much” and “not at all” are considered negative responses.

By adding up the scores in the positive categories,

Apple tallied a score of 44% (18% said it trusted Apple with its personal data “a great deal” while 26% said it trusted Apple “a good amount”). But that placed the tech giant third after Amazon’s 53% and Google’s 48%. After Apple, Microsoft finished fourth with 43%, YouTube (which is owned by Google) was fifth with 35%, and Facebook was sixth at 20%.

See also  Meta Outlines Policy Requirements for Businesses Looking to Advertise and Sell on its Platforms

Rounding out the remainder of the nine firms in the survey, Instagram placed seventh with a positive score of 19%, WhatsApp was eighth with a score of 15%, and TikTok was last at 12%.

Looking at the scoring for the two negative responses (“not much,” or “not at all”), Facebook had a combined negative score of 72% making it the least trusted company in the survey. TikTok was next at 63% with Instagram following at 60%. WhatsApp and YouTube were both in the middle of the pact at 53% followed next by Google and Microsoft at 47% and 42% respectively. Apple and Amazon each had the lowest combined negative scores at 40% each.

74% of those surveyed called targeted online ads invasive

The survey also found that a whopping 82% of respondents found targeted online ads annoying and 74% called them invasive. Just 27% found such ads helpful. This response doesn’t exactly track the 62% of iOS users who have used Apple’s App Tracking Transparency feature to opt-out of being tracked while browsing websites and using apps. The tracking allows third-party firms to send users targeted ads online which is something that they cannot do to users who have opted out.

The 38% of iOS users who decided not to opt out of being tracked might have done so because they find it convenient to receive targeted ads about a certain product that they looked up online. But is ATT actually doing anything?

Marketing strategy consultant Eric Seufert said last summer, “Anyone opting out of tracking right now is basically having the same level of data collected as they were before. Apple hasn’t actually deterred the behavior that they have called out as being so reprehensible, so they are kind of complicit in it happening.”

See also  Rapchat tunes into $2.3M as its music-making app hits 7M users

The Financial Times says that iPhone users are being lumped together by certain behaviors instead of unique ID numbers in order to send targeted ads. Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg says that the company is working to rebuild its ad infrastructure “using more aggregate or anonymized data.”

Aggregated data is a collection of individual data that is used to create high-level data. Anonymized data is data that removes any information that can be used to identify the people in a group.

When consumers were asked how often do they think that their phones or other tech devices are listening in to them in ways that they didn’t agree to, 72% answered “very often” or “somewhat often.” 28% responded by saying “rarely” or “never.”

Continue Reading


Google’s John Mueller on Brand Mentions via @sejournal, @martinibuster



Google’s John Mueller was asked if “brand mentions” helped with SEO and rankings. John Mueller explained, in detail, how brand mentions are not anything used at Google.

What’s A Brand Mention?

A brand mention is when one website mentions another website. There is an idea in the SEO community that when a website mentions another website’s domain name or URL that Google will see this and count it the same as a link.

Brand Mentions are also known as an implied link. Much was written about this ten years ago after a Google patent that mentions “implied links” surfaced.

There has never been a solid review of why the idea of “brand mentions” has nothing to do with this patent, but I’ll provide a shortened version later in this article.

John Mueller Discussing Brand Mentions

John Mueller Brand Mentions

John Mueller Brand Mentions

Do Brand Mentions Help With Rankings?

The person asking the question wanted to know about brand mentions for the purpose of ranking. The person asking the question has good reason to ask it because the idea of “brand mentions” has never been definitively reviewed.


Continue Reading Below

The person asked the question:

“Do brand mentions without a link help with SEO rankings?”

Google Does Not Use Brand Mentions

Google’s John Mueller answered that Google does not use the “brand mentions” for any link related purpose.

Mueller explained:

“From my point of view, I don’t think we use those at all for things like PageRank or understanding the link graph of a website.

And just a plain mention is sometimes kind of tricky to figure out anyway.”

That part about it being tricky is interesting.

He didn’t elaborate on why it’s tricky until later in the video where he says it’s hard to understand the subjective context of a website mentioning another website.

Brand Mentions Are Useful For Building Awareness

Mueller next says that brand mentions may be useful for helping to get the word out about a site, which is about building popularity.

Mueller continued:

“But it can be something that makes people aware of your brand, and from that point of view, could be something where indirectly you might have some kind of an effect from that in that they search for your brand and then …obviously, if they’re searching for your brand then hopefully they find you right away and then they can go to your website.

And if they like what they see there, then again, they can go off and recommend that to other people as well.”


See also  White House teams up with dating apps to give vaccinated users free perks

Continue Reading Below

“Brand Mentions” Are Problematic

Later on at the 58 minute mark another person brings the topic back up and asks how Google could handle spam sites that are mentioning a brand in a negative way.

The person said that one can disavow links but one cannot disavow a “brand mention.”

Mueller agreed and said that’s one of things that makes brand mentions difficult to use for ranking purposes.

John Mueller explained:

“Kind of understanding the almost the subjective context of the mention is really hard.

Is it like a positive mention or a negative mention?

Is it a sarcastic positive mention or a sarcastic negative mention? How can you even tell?

And all of that, together with the fact that there are lots of spammy sites out there and sometimes they just spin content, sometimes they’re malicious with regards to the content that they create…

All of that, I think, makes it really hard to say we can just use that as the same as a link.

…It’s just, I think, too confusing to use as a clear signal.”

Where “Brand Mentions” Come From

The idea of “brand mentions” has bounced around for over ten years.

There were no research papers or patents to support it. “Brand mentions” is literally an idea that someone invented out of thin air.

However the “brand mention” idea took off in 2012 when a patent surfaced that seemed to confirm the idea of brand mentions.

There’s a whole long story to this so I’m just going to condense it.

There’s a patent from 2012 that was misinterpreted in several different ways because most people at the time, myself included, did not read the entire patent from beginning to end.

See also  [Hero Academy Video] Quora Lead Form Ads

The patent itself is about ranking web pages.

The structure of most Google patents consist of introductory paragraphs that discuss what the patent is about and those paragraphs are followed by pages of in-depth description of the details.

The introductory paragraphs that explain what it’s about states:

“Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs… for ranking search results.”


Continue Reading Below

Pretty much nobody read that beginning part of the patent.

Everyone focused on a single paragraph in the middle of the patent (page 9 out of 16 pages).

In that paragraph there is a mention of something called “implied links.”

The word “implied” is only mentioned four times in the entire patent and all four times are contained within that single paragraph.

So when this patent was discovered, the SEO industry focused on that single paragraph as proof that Google uses brand mentions.

In order to understand what an “implied link” is, you have to scroll all the way back up to the opening paragraphs where the Google patent authors describe something called a “reference query” that is not a link but is nevertheless used for ranking purposes just like a link.

What Is A Reference Query?

A reference query is a search query that contains a reference to a URL or a domain name.

The patent states:

“A reference query for a particular group of resources can be a previously submitted search query that has been categorized as referring to a resource in the particular group of resources.”


Continue Reading Below

Elsewhere the patent provides a more specific explanation:

“A query can be classified as referring to a particular resource if the query includes a term that is recognized by the system as referring to the particular resource.

…search queries including the term “” can be classified as referring to that home page.”

The summary of the patent, which comes at the beginning of the document, states that it’s about establishing which links to a website are independent and also counting reference queries and with that information creating a “modification factor” which is used to rank web pages.

“…determining, for each of the plurality of groups of resources, a respective count of reference queries; determining, for each of the plurality of groups of resources, a respective group-specific modification factor, wherein the group-specific modification factor for each group is based on the count of independent links and the count of reference queries for the group;”

The entire patent largely rests on those two very important factors, a count of independent inbound links and the count of reference queries. The phrases reference query and reference queries are used 39 times in the patent.

See also  Overlooked teams up with college newspapers to build a news-focused social network


Continue Reading Below

As noted above, the reference query is used for ranking purposes like a link, but it’s not a link.

The patent states:

“An implied link is a reference to a target resource…”

It’s clear that in this patent, when it mentions the implied link, it’s talking about reference queries, which as explained above simply means when people search using keywords and the domain name of a website.

Idea of Brand Mentions Is False

The whole idea of “brand mentions” became a part of SEO belief systems because of how that patent was misinterpreted.

But now you have the facts and know why “brand mentions” is not real thing.

Plus John Mueller confirmed it.

“Brand mentions” is something completely random that someone in the SEO community invented out of thin air.


Ranking Search Results Patent

Watch John Mueller discuss “brand mentions” at 44:10 Minute Mark and the brand Mentions second part begins at the 58:12 minute mark

[embedded content]

Continue Reading

Subscribe To our Newsletter
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address