So yesterday, I was having a meeting with a publisher where I needed to share several different screens... which is really annoying to do with Zoom. So something had to done about that ;)
What you see here is a multi-screen setup using OBS.
Screen 1: Me (full HD webcam view)
Screen 2: PowerPoint
Screen 3: Browser + me in split screen view
Screen 4: Full screen browser view
Screen 5: (not playing) ...a video
And I can then switch between them via the number keys
Here is a screenshot of what my 'switcher' look like. Each of the small pictures below is a preview of each view. The big window on the left is the preview (to set up the next view), and the big picture on the right is what is currently being shown to Zoom
I don't know about you, but I'm definitely starting to feel 'virtual event fatigue' ... there are so many events at the moment (several every week, even sometimes every day) that it's a bit overwhelming.
Another problem is also that virtual events require you to dedicate time. It's at a specific time ("Join us at 2 PM Thursday"), so it's very hard to manage. If it was instead 'on-demand', I could watch/listen whenever it fitted into my schedule instead.
I truly believe this is something we need to change. Virtual events are great, but we are currently doing them like 1980s TV shows (Watch this at 8PM Friday!!)
Back in 2018, I wrote about how I implemented GDPR, by taking it to the extreme. I created a totally privacy-first focused site. baekdal.com/thoughts/insid…
This does create a few complications, though... 1/..
Take newsletters. I obviously want to know how many people who get each newsletter, how many who open it, and how many of the links people click on... but to do this in a totally privacy-first way means getting rid of all personal identifiers. baekdal.com/analytics/gdpr…
All of this requires some tricky coding. For instance, I have spent this day building a new newsletter sending system. But I'm not sending the email directly, instead I use a mail server (like everyone else) ... but how do you do that in a privacy focused way?
No they are not. If they were actually important to you, you would not show us this. GDPR came into effect on May 28, 2018 ... so it's pretty clear that this is not a priority for you at all.
Note to US publishers. I can understand why, as a local publisher in the US, that you don't want to deal with the cost and complication of implementing European legislation for an audience that is outside your market. I get that.
But then just say that. Don't lie to me.
What seriously annoys me as a media analyst is when publishers behave dishonestly. You say you care about my privacy, but you are asking me to give it up. That's not caring.
You say I'm important to you, but your actions say otherwise.
One thing I hate is how publishers try to twist GDPR into meaning something different, when the actual law is extremely clear.
Here is how 'consent' is defined.
So no, you cannot say: "By continuing to use our site you will automatically consent." That is simply not a thing.
It's the same about controllers vs processors. It's the data controller that people give consent to, and the processors act on behalf of that controller. What this means is that no processor can ever claim to have the right to do something on another site without a new consent.
If you give your consent to tracking on one newspaper to include FB tracking, then FB cannot claim to have the right to track someone on another site, arguing that you already gave your consent once. People didn't give their consent to FB. They gave it to the newspaper.
The problem with Medium is they have never really defined what problem they are trying to solve. In fact their motto being 'a blank page' means exactly that ... no having any idea about what solution you are creating.
When was the last time the front page of the NYT made you feel this type of joy?
My point is not to defend social platforms. There are problems on them within specific things. Problem they need to do something about. But newspapers are no substitute for all the amazing things that happen on social channels every day and all the joy it gives us.
And, as a media analyst, having studied the effects of news avoidance, news fatigue, and how news affects people's mental health, following wonderful people on social channels is really important in lifting people back up again.
One thing that many people here in Scandinavia don't understand is 'why' the virus is happening the way it is.
Let me explain by comparing Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. (well, mostly Denmark and Sweden)
When the virus hit Scandinavia (almost simultaneously), both Norway and Denmark imposed a lockdown, whereas Sweden had a more 'casual approach. Sweden did add some restrictions but to a much less degree.
The effect was very clear.
However, what happened then in Denmark was that, as we got the virus under control, we started reducing the restrictions more and more ... so much in fact that we ended up with fewer restrictions than in Sweden.
Note to journalists: "We are finding more infected because we are testing more" is a misleading thing to report.
When you write anything about testing, it's the 'rate' of infected that matters. If they test more, the rate of infected should go down. ⬇
From a journalistic perspective, we need to think a lot more about outcomes. Think about how the public will react when they read what you write.
If you write: "They test more so we see more infected", people will think: "Oh yeah, that makes sense. So everything is fine."
But if the rate of infected isn't going down as they increase the test level, then things are not fine. Instead, the public needs to do more to stop the virus ... but they are not doing this because you just reported that these numbers are not something we should worry about.
One of the things I'm shouting about to publishers is how we turned into the tobacco industry. What do I mean? Well, the tobacco industry was doing something that was clearly wrong, and so the legislators stepped in and demanded that they put a warning label on their products.
Now we see the same thing with publishers. The way we are violating people's privacy has caused the legislators to force us to put a warning label on our sites.
Just think about this. We have become the tobacco industry.
"But," every publisher is now yelling back at me, "It's not our fault. It's the ad tech industry, and we can't do anything about this."
Three things: 1. Yes, you can.
2: You are not even trying
3: You are still responsible for what happens on your site.
There is a really weird thing happening in relation to COVID-19 numbers for Sweden ... where the numbers people are told inside Sweden is massively different than outside of Sweden.
Let me explain:
Inside of Sweden, when you look at what the Swedish press and what the government is saying, they are all reporting numbers based on the official public health agency (Folkhälsomyndigheten) in Sweden ... which is here: experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f…
This dashboard is tracking what they call "Total number of laboratory-confirmed cases". And they then break this out into 'cases per day', 'new intensive cases per day', and 'deaths per day.'