GSLV-F08 in its 12th flight of Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) and Sixth flight with indigenous Cryogenic Upper Stage successfully launched the GSAT-6A payload at 16:56 Hrs (IST) into a precise orbit. The Launch of GSLV-F08 carried GSAT-6A satellite from the Second Launch Pad (SLP) in Satish Dhawan Space Centre SHAR, Sriharikota. ISRO sources said they will be validating systems…




Cleveland Indians pitcher Trevor Bauer implies MLB censored his Twitter account

As he enters his sixth season with the Cleveland Indians, Trevor Bauer has taken a more mature approach to his social media presence. That, however, hasn’t stopped the right-handed pitcher from speaking up, which he did on Thursday, when he called the … VISIT THE SOURCE ARTICLE Cleveland Indians pitcher Trevor Bauer implies MLB censored his Twitter account


India, Indonesia begin Joint drill

A special task force of the Indian Army and the Indonesian Army on Monday began sixth Garuda Shakti exercise here.The joint drill from February 19 to March 4 aims to build experience sharing in counter-terrorism operations, close quarter combat and other areas of special operations. According to Indian Ambassador to Indonesia Pradeep Kumar Rawat, who also attended the ceremony, the joint exercise…


Volkswagen launches all-new Polo in SA: All you need to know

 • Sixth generation Polo in South Africa • Longer, lower and larger inside • Enhanced features • First Polo with digital instruments • Trendline, Comfortline, Highline trim • GTI, beats and R-Line packages Port Elizabeth – Since its launch in 2010, the Volkswagen Polo hatch has consistently been the second best-selling passenger car in South Africa, with its sibling the Polo Vivo being…


Could Platform Safe Harbors Save the NAFTA Talks? | NETWORKFIGHTS.COM

Spread the love

As the sixth round of talks over a modernized North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) kicks off in Montreal, Canada, this week, EFF has joined with 15 other organizations and 39 academic experts to send the negotiators an open letter [PDF] about the importance of platform safe harbor rules, a topic that has been proposed for the deal’s Digital Trade chapter. The proposed rules, which are based on S47 U.S.C. section 230, a provision of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA 230”), would require that Internet intermediaries—whether giants like Facebook, or just your neighbour with an open Wi-Fi hotspot—can’t be held liable for most speech of their users.

Usually our arguments for such strong platform safe harbor protections  (which the letter refers to as intermediary immunity) center around how these support users’ freedom of expression, by preventing would-be censors and critics from shutting down the platforms that host user speech. But as trade negotiators are not particularly receptive to human rights arguments, instead our joint letter focuses on the economic arguments for platform safe harbors, which are also compelling:

First, intermediary immunity facilitates the development of effective reputation systems that strengthen markets. Reputation systems improve buyer trust and encourage vendors to compete on quality as well as price. Online, consumer review services and other wisdom-of-the-crowds feedback mechanisms have emerged that have no offline equivalent. However, online reputation systems require liability immunity to function properly. Otherwise, vendors can easily suppress truthful negative information via litigation threats. Immunity keeps that information online so that it can benefit consumers.

Second, intermediary immunity lowers the barriers to launch new online services predicated on third party content, making those markets more competitive. Without immunity, new entrants face business-ending liability exposure from day one; and they must make expensive upfront investments to mitigate that risk. Immunity lowers entrants’ capital requirements and the riskiness of their investments, leading to more new entrants seeking to disrupt incumbents. This helps prevent the market from ossifying at a small number of incumbent giants.

The difficulty with the inclusion of Section 230 style safe harbors in NAFTA is that it would either require Canada and Mexico to change their law, or it would require the provision to be watered down in order to become compatible with their existing law—which would make its inclusion pointless. Therefore, the first option is the better one. For Canada, in particular, strengthening legal protection for Internet platforms could help roll back the precedent set in the Google v. Equustek case, in which the Canadian Supreme Court required Google to globally de-index a website that purportedly infringed Canadian trade secret rights.

Although changing Canadian law to strengthen platform safe harbors would be a significant step, there are certainly even tougher issues pending in the NAFTA negotiations, such as dispute resolution, government procurement, and America’s demand for a five-year sunset clause. Moreover, Canada is asking a lot of the United States, too; having this month filed a broad-ranging World Trade Organization (WTO) complaint [PDF] against the United States alleging that the latter is flouting WTO rules in the way that it imposes tariffs and duties on other countries. In that context, reaching an agreement on platform safe harbors could become an olive branch to bring the countries closer to an overall deal.

Exporting Section 230 to Mexico and Canada isn’t the only reason to advocate for its inclusion in a modernized NAFTA. This negotiation comes at a time when Section 230 stands under threat in the United States, currently from the SESTA and FOSTA proposals, which could escalate into demands that platforms also assume greater responsibility for other types of content. As uncomfortable as we are with the lack of openness of trade negotiations, baking Section 230 into NAFTA may be the best opportunity we have to protect it domestically.

Officially, this is the second-last round of NAFTA talks that has been scheduled, although it seems next to impossible that the talks could be resolved in the next round. The two more likely scenarios are either that President Trump will notify the other parties that the U.S. is withdrawing from the existing NAFTA, or that additional rounds of negotiation will be scheduled after the Mexican general elections in July. Extending the negotiation would also leave more time for negotiators to begin to engage meaningfully with the public about platform safe harbors and other digital policy issues, which they have failed to do to date.

Frankly, we don’t think that trade agreements are the right place to be negotiating rules for the Internet, and we’d rather that a Digital Trade chapter wasn’t being negotiated at all, without significant reforms to the transparency and openness of the negotiations. But if a Digital Trade chapter in NAFTA is inevitable, which seems to be the case, the better outcome for users is for broad platform safe harbor rules to be a part of that deal—both to protect users and innovators in the United States, and to ensure that the same level of protection applies North and South of the border.

Author: Jeremy Malcolm

Another retraction to appear for Cornell food scientist Brian Wansink – Retraction Watch | CENSORED.TODAY

Spread the love

Brian Wansink

The new year will bring a sixth retraction for food scientist Brian Wansink, whose work has been under fire for all of 2017.

Although the notice has not yet been released, the journal Appetite plans to retract a 2003 paper about the different forces that motivate people to try new foods (referring, in this specific context, to soy).

It’s unclear why “Profiling taste-motivated segments” is being retracted (we asked the journal, but haven’t immediately heard back); some potential issues were flagged in March by Nick Brown, a PhD student who has devoted hundreds of hours to analyzing Wansink’s work (and forwarded us the email from Appetite confirming the upcoming retraction).

For instance, Brown alleged the article contains duplicated material, and similarities to the results from another 2002 paper that also measured soy consumption. After analyzing those two papers and a 2004 paper (also about eating soy), Brown concluded:

1-Around half of the F statistics reported in these three articles cannot be correct, given the means that were reported. Either the means are wrong, or the F statistics are wrong, or both.

2-The attitudes towards soy products reported by the participants in the Cheong and Westgren studies are remarkably similar, despite the samples having been drawn from very different populations. This similarity also seems to apply to the items for which the results give impossible test statistics.

3-The distribution of the digits after the decimal point in the numbers representing the means and F statistics does not appear to be consistent with these numbers representing the values of measured random variables (or statistical operations performed on such variables); nor does it appear to be consistent with random transcription errors.

Brown added:

I am trying hard to think of possible explanations for all of this.

This will mark Wansink’s sixth retraction; one of his papers was retracted twice after the journal pulled a revised version. He also has issued 13 corrections. The Appetite paper has been cited six times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here. If you have comments or feedback, you can reach us at [email protected].

Author: Alison McCook ||