There are few people more important in the running of a business than the CEO. A CEO should represent the interests of all shareholders.
The global smartphone market is one of the most successful companies in the world. Not even Google has that kind of success.
These smartphones are also among the most important consumer products in history and are changing the way we live and how businesses operate.
Towards the end of 2016, there was a request that China remove all internet access for people in China as it was to restrictive of user’s rights and freedoms.
This was an illogical request and resulted in a very difficult time for those using the internet to buy, sell and teach information.
There is no doubt in my mind that internet access is important
One of the biggest problems I have ever come across is people not knowing how to build a search engine because they cannot access basic information online.
While we are on the subject, I will say that I am baffled as to why people think that China is not just as important as the UK.
If we look at these figures, China has the second highest population of internet users in the world.
Yes, it may be hard to navigate China’s “Great Firewall” but Google is still way more important than China’s equivalent service.
I am not anti-regulation. The internet was pretty much unregulated until the beginning of this year. It is our job to be critical and to point out what is and is not working.
We as the market place of ideas need to stick up for what we believe in and take some responsibility for it.
Any company or organisation doing business should be using social media. Social media is a valuable tool that allows customers to communicate with companies and to get feedback.
It is also used by the companies themselves to communicate with their customers and to interact with them.
That is what Facebook is for. Instagram is the home of travel photography and Instagram provides some of the most amazing travel photography platforms around.
Social media is a huge tool in the marketing of a business and should be used in every type of business.
But, social media is not used just to drive sales, but for the betterment of the market place. This is where social media must be regulated.
Too much control over a social media platform allows “fake news” to spread, corruption to flourish, illegal weapons to be sold, and suicide to be faked.
When faced with public scrutiny, these issues should be addressed.
The argument is that there are too many regulations and red tape. I think there are too many regulations when it comes to social media and free speech.
We have spent years online now, let’s take some responsibility. In this day and age, there are ways to be creative, there are ways to express yourself.
All the great and successful people I have come across use social media and none of them had to leave behind their families and job just to get where they are.
Do we really want to create another problem for society to solve by more regulation?
Some of the regulation being proposed is pretty pointless.
It will not stop a fly from hitting a window, it will not stop crime from happening, it will not stop “fake news” from spreading.
The only solution is the internet. You should use it, but be careful what you say.
It can be like your own little silo and, if you are not careful, you can be trapped inside.
The sooner we understand that there is no one way of doing things, the sooner we can move forward.
The consequences of getting it wrong can be horrific, and can have even fatal consequences.
It is not an easy subject to talk about but it is a very important one.
A technocrat approach is no answer
While many will agree that more transparency is needed on how political advertising is funded and how it is targeted, it is not clear that regulating political adverts through transparency requirements is the solution.
First, this is not just a problem of transparency. The public would be horrified to see the many vile messages that are aimed at politicians, parties, and other public figures.
The problem is that many of these messages appear to be legal in the UK.
It is hard to see how transparency in political ads is a solution to a problem that is caused by the almost complete lack of political funding regulations in the UK.
The second is that much of the political adverting is innocuous, or benign. Some of it is pro-EU messages that would rightly be banned in the UK.
Some of it is pro-Brexit messages that would equally be banned in the UK.
However, much of it is polarising – and, as the Cambridge Analytica scandal has demonstrated, polarising messages can be used by political campaigners to radically manipulate an election. In many ways, this is the real danger in the UK.
Lastly, Facebook and other tech companies already know that much of the adverting they offer to politicians and parties in the UK is polarising – and they still don’t agree that greater transparency will reduce it.
This is partly because the reality is that some polarising messaging is necessary for effective political campaigning, in order to win elections.
