NTWRK, dubbed the “QVC for Gen Z,” is a new and exciting video shopping platform that seamlessly blends content and commerce for a global audience of fans and collectors

NTWRK

Authorization is a crucial pain point software developers inevitably encounter when designing software. As much as it needs to be custom to every application, it also needs to be easily scalable and secure. For the uninitiated, authorization is the mechanism for checking what a user is allowed to do — anything from the pages you’re allowed to see, to the data that you are allowed interact with. Without proper authorization, an application can become vulnerable to unauthorized access, data breaches, and other security threats. Typically, stateful authorization, a system where permissions are granted based on stored information about a user's past actions or status, is utilized by development teams. These are often built by hand, ad-hoc and don’t take into account future scalability. Stateless security Yet as the number of application users balloons, the possibility of state desynchronization increases. That could result in possible leaks of sensitive information, users denied access or access enabled based on incorrect data. This is where stateless authorization comes into play. Companies like Cerbos provide an API for an authorization layer that relies on contextual information in a user request and is self-contained; meaning that any server can process them without drawing on stored user and application data. That makes it not only secure but also scalable, increasing application performance across the board. That’s what staff engineer at youth culture ecommerce platform NTWRK Steve High found when he opted for Cerbos, commenting that “if you imagine 10,000 people trying to buy the same instance of a physical product on our platform at the same time, that's what we have to deal with. Using Cerbos as a sidecar, we’ve been able to get permissions-checking latency down to microseconds… in turn, NTWRK is able to provide a great user experience to our customers, both internal and external.” In stateless authorization, each request is evaluated independently without having to interact with a database, bumping up performance in applications. No longer bogged down by expensive database queries, stateless authorization can handle large volumes of requests, making it ideal for high-traffic applications like NTWRK where the speed of response time could be a deciding factor as to whether the user stays or goes with a competitor. Unlocking flexibility As any startup founder knows, flexibility is key in scaling a business and, with stateless authorization, policies can be easily changed and updated. With requests now relying on context to make a decision on user access, policy modifications can be made that do not invalidate existing sessions. This makes it ideal for companies building in dynamic and fast-changing industries such as fintech, SaaS and ecommerce. For B2B fintech platform Loop, which aims to streamline the financial operation of businesses, flexibility in authorization processes is of particular importance as it deals with financial transactions. “Unless there's a change in customer requirements, or our internal requirements, in which we say that, we need to allow this person to do this — we just need to tweak some policies and deploy it,” says CTO Mohsin Kalam after implementing Cerbos’ stateless authorization, “And it hardly requires a core application code change on our end. We just deploy it and push the policies to the server and everything just works out of the box.” If authorization isn’t built in keeping with the demands of a rapidly-changing startup, it can be a headache for the developer teams. As highlighted by both NTWRK and Loop, stateless authorization offers a lightweight, scalable and flexible approach to controlling access — it’s time that the industry caught onto that.

The Future is Stateless: It’s Time To Ensure Your Security Is As Scalable as Your Business

With the introduction of lockdown measures and brick-and-mortar stores closing their doors, retailers’ reliance on has intensified. The push to online and the need to attract and retain customers has made retail brands invest more in digital advertising and bring livestream shopping to their marketing mixes. ecommerce solutions A hot trend, livestream shopping makes online shopping more engaging and experiential while taking conversions way up. In this article, we’ll examine the phenomenon of livestream shopping, evaluate its impact on the retail sector, and zoom in on out-of-the-box and custom live video shopping tools. What is livestream shopping? The concept of live shopping goes back to the 80s and builds on the idea of video shopping. You are likely to remember QVC’s Lisa Robertson casually chatting with the viewers while demonstrating jewelry or HSN's Bobby Ray Carter showcasing fashion pieces with the viewers tuning in, seeing what’s for sale, and calling in to make a purchase. Livestream shopping — using video streaming tools to demonstrate products, communicate with an audience, and sell, all online — is a natural offshoot of this original TV-oriented model. Combining the best of ecommerce, video streaming, and social media, live commerce lets people shop anytime and from anywhere, encourages real-time communication, and sparks interactivity, appealing to today’s tech-savvy, sit-at-home customersLivestream shopping can take different forms, from live events and auctions to online marketplaces and influencer streams. Irrespective of the format, viewers can tune into a live shopping session, leave comments, ask questions, and communicate with a host or with one another. And once they are ready to purchase, they can click a link embedded in a shoppable video and proceed to checkout. Live shopping provides for personalization, too. Although one-to-many live streams, when products are marketed to mass online audiences, are more popular, brands can pay special treatment to their repeat buyers through one-to-one livestream sessions. With private dialogues between a host and a customer, brands can produce higher conversion rates and average order values and increase the customers’ chance of returning. How does livestream shopping work? Suppose you want to tap into livestream shopping. In that case, you have three options: 1. Leverage social media’s streaming functionality conditions and predicting patient outcomes 2. Market your products on an existing video commerce platform or a marketplace with streaming features 3. Opt for a custom livestream shopping solution 1. Social media The most popular and perhaps most straightforward way to start with livestream shopping is going live on popular social media apps. Luckily, most social media platforms have introduced livestream and ecommerce functionality in response to the video shopping trend. Instagram, for instance, has added built-in checkout capabilities throughout its apps, including Instagram Live, which, by the way, has seen a 70% increase in the number of viewers in 2020. Facebook, too, is developing native livestream shopping tools. In turn, TikTok is partnering with ecommerce giant Walmart for the latter to market their products online. The critical advantage of turning to social media is the possibility to team up with influencers, who play a crucial role in the success of livestream shopping, right where their audiences are. A study from Adweek reports that 49% of respondents actively follow social media influencers and based upon an influencer’s recommendation. So, having influencers as hosts may help in developing trust and loyalty among customers. However, as social media platforms generate income via media buy, they focus on being social. So, ecommerce functionality is still limited to select brands. As a result, shoppers have to be routed to other platforms or websites to finalize purchases, which disrupts the whole retailtainment experience. have made a purchase 2. Out-of-the-box live shopping apps Another way to start capitalizing on the video shopping trend involves joining an existing livestream shopping platform or an ecommerce marketplace with livestreaming features. And these span from video commerce giants like Amazon Live and Taobao, live shopping startups like Bambuser and Spin, and niche live commerce apps like NTWRK. The essential advantage is that most out-of-the-box video shopping apps feature built-in integrations with popular ecommerce platforms and payment gateways as compared to the previous option. So, users don’t have to be routed to other sites to complete a purchase and can enjoy an uninterrupted video shopping experience. The fundamental limitation is that some livestream shopping platforms, especially larger ones and those with established audiences, expect a brand to meet a range of requirements, like having a steady business history, and charge commissions. Amazon Live, for instance, charges up to 10% on each purchase. Another downside is rising competition — with millions of livestream views, it can be tricky for retailers to stand out. 3. Custom live video shopping applications Retailers who seek to make video shopping an essential part of their marketing kit may consider developing a custom retail solution with livestream functionality. Going custom is undoubtedly more effort-intensive than the previous two options. But a custom app can let retailers take maximum advantage of the video shopping trend with tailored functionality, high-quality streaming, advanced analytics, and maybe even some extra features, like AI-powered video content personalization. If you do opt for a we recommend starting with an MVP. However, it is essential to plan for the future and make sure your app will handle the growing number of shoppers. For that, make time to choose a reliable content delivery network (CDN). Looking for the perfect CDN, make sure it has a robust server infrastructure close to your target locations and pay attention to the bandwidth. With the basics in place, you can think about MVP features. The essentials to include in the first app version are: custom livestream shopping app, User registration and authorization Online streaming as such Live chatting Checkout and payment Server-side stream processing With the subsequent iterations, you can add everything from different signup options, personal customer profiles, search options, the possibility to save streams as on-demand videos, advanced analytics, streaming content personalization, and more What’s the livestream shopping market size? The current livestream shopping trend has its roots in China. China’s ecommerce giants started holding live shopping events hosted by local celebrities back in the 2010s. The US has begun to catch up with the trend, too. The US livestreaming market is expected to by the end of 2021 and hit $25 billion by 2023, according to Coresight Research. The market value is still incomparable to that in China, where it comprised $150 billion in 2020 and is expected to reach $300 billion in 2021. The companies that look prominent on the US livestream shopping market today include: reach $11 billion Launched in 2018, the platform has a 2-million follower base, which is constantly growing. According to Bloomberg, since its premiere, TalkShopLive’s sales have increased sevenfold TalkShopLive. . Having started as a directory for American retailers to reach Chinese travelers, the platform has turned into a profitable livestream shopping endeavor that has recently expanded into and is gaining popularity on the American market ShopShops . The mobile app uses live shows to sell limited edition products. The company has seen its sales double in 2020, with some shows reaching $1 million in sales in approximately 10 minutes NTWRK The ecommerce giant has rolled out its video streaming service with lifestyle, fitness, and cooking streams Amazon. The company has introduced Shoploop — a video shopping platform that features 90-second shoppable stories Google. Its Live Shopping feature allows creators and brands to sell products during Instagram Live broadcasts. The functionality is available to business accounts Instagram. An explosion of digital media and video content consumption, an increasing impact celebrities and influencers have on shopping decisions, and the push to online boosted by the COVID-19 pandemic allow projecting that more US retail brands will move on the live shopping trend in the near future. Companies profiting from livestream shopping today Nordstrom Nordstrom, an American department store chain, launched its own in 2020. Following the launch, the brand hosted over 50 virtual events, translating the store experience into the digital world, and plans on carrying out their livestream shopping endeavors through 2021. During each event, customers can shop the fashion products mentioned in the video and participate in a live chat. The company’s efforts are paying off. In 2020, 54% of the brand’s sales came from digital channels, while virtual styling accounted for 30% of all styling appointments. shoppable livestream channel CAIA Cosmetics, Lyko CAIA Cosmetics and Lyko, Swedish cosmetic and hair care brands, have partnered with Bambuser, a video commerce startup, to power their marketing with live shopping. CAIA Cosmetics, for instance, holds make-up tutorials with the brand’s founder Bianca Ingrosso and claims to be very satisfied with the customers’ response. The , with 17% of the viewers participating in the live chat and 60% — engaging through likes. The first live stream ended up with a 5% conversion rate, which is higher than the brand’s website conversions. Lyko, in turn, chose to kick off their live broadcasts by offering tips and gifts during the holiday season. The brand had an average viewing time of 16.5 minutes, 17% chatting and 29% liking engagement, and a 22% conversion rate. average stream viewing time comprises 11 minutes Quivr Quivr, a coffee and tea manufacturer, has tried social media to market their products via video streams but eventually landed on Amazon Live as their video commerce platform. Quivr’s co-founder Ash Crawford says that the of about 150% the next 24 hours after a live stream. brand sees a guaranteed increase in sales Livestream shopping trends and predictions The possibilities for further evolution and expansion of livestream shopping are numerous. Introducing AI, for example, can help retailers create highly personalized channels of live, interactive content created or curated specifically for a given customer. and VR, in turn, would be of help in creating immersive video shopping experiences for sit-at-home customers, for example, transporting them to the front row of a fashion show with a host ready to answer questions. Leveraging AR In the shorter perspective, brands will continue to extend their reach to more customers through live streams, analysts say. Considering the drastic change in shopping habits and the push to online spaces that are expected to last, livestream shopping is likely to extend in the post-pandemic world. Livestream shopping offers an opportunity to bring the best of physical shopping to online customers. If you’re ready to seize the opportunity, contact the ITRex team!

An Introduction to Livestream Shopping

The major recent breakthroughs in diagnostics and treatment. Even 50 or 70 years ago, personalized medicine existed solely as the talking point of science fiction writers and scientific visionaries. However, as genetic technologies emerged, the individual approach to diagnostics and therapy of many hereditary and incurable diseases became a routine or at least a common solution. These diseases include various cancer types, autoimmune disorders, and numerous orphan (i.e., rare) pathologies. Although such developments are infamous for their high (sometimes exorbitant) costs, they can no longer be considered unavailable. Genomics and molecular genetics have laid the groundwork for a complete overhaul of the healthcare system, following the P4 principle[1] where both personalization and predictability play pivotal roles. It is becoming possible to detect genetic predisposition to a disease before conception, prevent an illness during pregnancy, learn about individual genetic specifics, and define a personal healthy lifestyle. This market is on the upturn: Mordor Intelligence marketing agency forecasts that these services will develop most intensively in Asia-Pacific countries. Europe and North America also demonstrate a slightly lower yet constantly growing demand, while Russia, Africa, and South America are falling behind .[2] These changes are expected to revolutionize medicine and shift the focus from disease treatment to health preservation. For patients with orphan and cancer diseases, gene therapy already gives a chance to get a cure. Given the overwhelming amount of global research, this therapy will soon become the ultimate method of treating other non-infectious diseases that cause early death or disability and have a detrimental effect on the quality of life. In this article, I will provide an overview of major genetic technologies in medicine that proved their effectiveness and became part of clinical practice, as well as of new developments at the final stages of their trials. Genetic testing: finding the “weakest link” of a malignant tumor The late 1990s were the milestone of cancer diagnostics, as genetic information on mutations became the starting point for specifying a targeted therapy. 3] [ Every tumor has its specific mutations, its gene "breakdowns" that the targeted effect of medication seeks to cope with. For example, the information on BRCA1/2 mutation helped establish a targeted breast cancer treatment and prevent this disease among the patient's relatives. Eventually, this experience has converted into the list of most common disorders, both hereditary and acquired, with molecular gene testing becoming a must of all medical guidelines and changing the course of pharmaceutical development. There is a gradual shift from developing medications against specific nosologies to adopting the target concept. For instance, the translocation of the NTRK gene can be found in different tumors but can be effectively treated by the same drug. Although this mutation is rare (found only in 1% of all tumors), its therapy can provide a positive response in 80% of all cases. 4] [ At first, "damages" in tumor tissues and the blood were diagnosed using low-effective methods that enabled the study of small DNA sequences, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and Sanger sequencing, known since the 1970-the 1980s, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of the 1990s. These tools were of great assistance, helping patients with solid tumors to avoid a needless or mismatching therapy and get a significant clinical effect; besides, oncohematology patients got an alternative to expensive procedures like marrow transplants. Nowadays, attempts are made to apply gene testing for specifying the diagnosis and even predicting the treatment efficiency. Another breakthrough happened in the 2010s: the Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology made it available to check the whole genome for damages. Here is the classic example of this method's capacities: it took over a decade and 3 billion dollars from the US budget to complete the Human Genome Project that described 3 billion DNA nucleotides using the standard tools. Meanwhile, the NGS sequenator can reveal the whole genome sequence in less than a year, at the cost of several thousand dollars. 5] [ Higher speed (several days compared to weeks and months) and fewer expenses are the self-evident advantages offered by the NGS. What is also important, this is almost the only way to collect more data from a smaller amount of material, e.g., from the blood plasma. Thanks to the NGS, liquid biopsy could provide information on potential mutations of up to 400 genes and has been approved for use against non-small-cell lung arcinoma and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Besides, the NGS makes it possible to perform population screenings and reveal various hereditary mutations, including breast cancer. Scientists believe that in high— or medium-income countries, it is easier and less expensive to test all women above 30, even those without family anamnesis, and then perform additional radiology diagnostics for the mutation carriers .[6] There is only one problem with the NGS application in oncology — it provides too much information, and we still do not fully understand how to use it, especially if a person is healthy. However, implementation of genome data in the clinical process is not as far away as it may seem — many countries, including Russia, are already considering collecting and storing large volumes of genetic data, creating specialized scientific centers, and adopting national strategies for developing genetic technologies .[7] Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) Attempts to detect the risk of various genetic disorders (Down syndrome being the most commonly known) at the gestation stage were made even before the NGS, but this method made this procedure non-invasive — and thus much safer. Mutations can be found since the 10th week of pregnancy by analyzing the fetus' DNA circulating in the mother's blood — to do this, only 0.01 ml of the mother's plasma is needed. 8] [ The person who revolutionized the embryonic-stage diagnostics of Down syndrome was Dennis Lo, a professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. At the turn of the millennium, he discovered the way to distinguish the fetal DNA in the pregnant women’s blood, giving an impetus to the rapid development of NITP methods that are harmless both to the mother and the future child. The main prerequisites for NIPT involve chromosome anomalies in the mother's or father's family history. Although this possibility is very low, the testing remains widespread, even though this procedure is not covered by general medical insurance in Russia and many other countries (except for some regional programs). There is another genetic test that enables risk assessment long before pregnancy. It focuses on gene mutations that cause disorders like mucoviscidosis, spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), and others — around 24 hereditary diseases in total. An Australian study shows that couples undergoing infertility treatment often turn out to be carriers of CFTR mutations (mucoviscidosis). 9] In some countries, this screening is offered to all couples applying for IVF, despite the ethical ambiguity of this initiative. 10] [ [ While the medical community keeps discussing the potential social and cultural damage of mass preconception screenings, the IT industry is looking for ways to optimize child diagnostics. It may take days to complete an NGS analysis, so in cases when any delay poses a risk to life and a decision needs to be made within 24 hours, the scientists suggest using artificial intelligence. AI can "notice" a genome decrypted by the NGS faster, even if no description is available. A recent comparative study demonstrates that AI can find a mutated gene in 92% of cases, while other methods fail to pass the 60%-threshold. 11] [ Gene therapy for orphan diseases The international scientific community began to take gene therapy seriously in the 1970s when Theodore Friedmann and Richard Roblin published their paper in Science. Back then, there were no tools for specifying the mutations, so Friedmann and Roblin emphasized that gene therapy required a careful approach. 12] However, the outcome was the opposite: the research continued, and the first clinical trials of gene therapy methods were launched for severe and rare diseases. [ When one patient died during the trials, those initiatives were put to stop (the US even suspended their specialized federal program) until 2003, when China relaunched the process and licensed gene therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). 13] Although this genetic product aimed to affect “broken” genes saw no further development, pharmaceutical companies from all over the world realized their ideas could finally be greenlit. [ As a result, gene therapy drugs began to be applied in various branches of medicine. In 2018, for example, the first virus vector-based drug was approved for use in ophthalmology. Luxturna targets RPE65 mutations that cause blindness. Oncohematology has a pool of developments built around CAR-T technology, the first of them being Kymriah, approved in the US in 2017. This method seeks to modify the patient's T cells genetically and codify the antigen receptor to target tumor cells. Four medications of this type are now used; Russia also has the practice of introducing its developments. 14] Zolgensma, approved in the US in 2019, deserves a special mention, as only one injection of this medicine can cure SMA. It is one of the most expensive drugs on the market, with one vial costing approximately 2.1 million USD. [ The FDA predicts that by 2025, they will be approving 10 to 20 cell and gene therapy products a year. 15] These expectations seem realistic — first of all, many clinical trials are undergoing their later stages right now. One of the examples is von Gierke disease (glycogen storage disease type I) that for years has been treated only by regular consumption of corn starch. [ Via a single injection of a virus, a new copy of a gene is delivered to the patient’s liver and “reboots” the body's glucose control. The first positive clinical trial results were published in 2019. 16] The drug has already received orphan medication status in the US and the UK, with its Stage III trial planned to be completed this December. 17] [ [ Meanwhile, we are witnessing the CRISPR gene editing technology in its prime. As I wrote earlier, its founders were rightfully awarded the Nobel Prize in 2020. The method involves "cutting" the DNA using Cas9 nuclease and putting together the ends of this "cut" in a way that makes a defect impossible. The most successful case of integrating CRISPR into clinical practice was demonstrated by Sarah Cannon Research Institute specialists — in summer 2019, they applied this therapy for the first time to a patient with sickle cell anemia. This disease (a mutation in the ) causes red blood cells to deform and lose their elasticity and flexibility, as well as leads to dangerous drops in the hemoglobin level. 18] After a year of therapy, the medics reported qualitative improvements in the patient's life: her hemoglobin level went up, and she needed inpatient assistance less often. In March 2021, similar trials began in several US research centers. 19] β-globin gene [ [ COVID-19 etiology Countermeasures against the COVID-19 pandemic — testing systems, vaccines, and medication — require the assistance of genetics. In early 2021, the WHO emphasized the importance of collecting genome data on SARS-CoV-2 and sequencing the virus. 20] To facilitate this process, scientists propose using AI, the way it is applied for disease diagnostics. 21] [ [ At the same time, research has been conducted to find mutations that make their carriers vulnerable to the coronavirus. The COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative consortium found 40 "candidate genes" that affect susceptibility to this virus. The scientists analyzed the genomes of about 50,000 people affected by the disease with various degrees of severity. They concluded that the TYK2 gene and its variations increase susceptibility to viruses, bacteria, and fungi. Another potentially dangerous "breakdown" was found in the DPP9 gene that also increases the risk of lung fibrosis. 22] [ The French scientists have found a set of genes among patients hospitalized in critical condition, with ADAM9 being particularly expressed. All these patients did not belong to the general risk group: they had no chronic diseases and were younger than 50. The study shows that this gene not only determines a more severe progression of COVID-19 but can also be potentially affected by targeted therapy. 23] [ As of now, this "COVID" research is more probing by nature than applicable here and now. Advanced technologies enable us to study the coronavirus more assiduously than any other virus in human history; in the next decade, they can give us many opportunities to defeat dozens of infectious diseases. How can we do it? We can study how a virus evolves online — so we will know what to be prepared for. Genetic technologies today and tomorrow How soon will all these achievements become part of our everyday life? The answer to this question depends on their availability and cost. The coronavirus pandemic, with new strains being detected much faster in countries applying advanced genome sequencing technologies, has emphasized the importance of the economic factor. Furthering the IT progress is the way to make genetic technologies less expensive and more widespread: availability of big data to the global medical and scientific communities helps save time and money by avoiding repetitive studies or therapeutic developments. While the importance of big data has become clear to almost every scientist, data transparency will become the key issue for the next few decades. About the Author Rustam Gilfanov is an IT entrepreneur and a venture partner of the LongeVC fund. In 2006, Rustam Gilfanov, together with his partners, opened an international IT outsourcing company in Kyiv. Today, this company is the largest developer of software for the gaming, marketing and finance industries. [1] P4 — predictive, preventive, personalized, and participatory medicine [2] https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/global-genetic-testing-market-industry [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6243123/ [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7815373/ [5] von Bubnoff A. Next-generation sequencing: the race is on. Cell. 2008;132(5):721–723^ doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.02.028. [6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7409094/ [7] https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2014/201/1/impact-genomics-future-medicine-and-health#5 [8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3893900/ [9] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21875427/ [10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7880037/ [11] https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-021-00965-0 [12] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.175.4025.949 [13] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7097065/ [14] https://vademec.ru/article/car-t-_dengi_i_stvoly-_kto_pervym_legalizuet_v_rossii_perspektivnyy_metod_lecheniya_raka_krovi/ [15] https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-md-and-peter-marks-md-phd-director-center-biologics [16] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190920124645.htm [17] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04708015?term=DTX401&draw=2&rank=3 [18] http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/8/360/360ra134 [19] https://innovativegenomics.org/news/crispr-clinical-trials-2021/ [20] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/338480/9789240018440-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [21] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12539-021-00465-0 [22] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01773-7 [23] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.abj7521

How Genetic Technologies Transform Medicine

By Neil Turkewitz A group of academics and advocates, including organizations such as EFF, Public Knowledge and R Street, have just published an open to the chief trade negotiators for the US, Canada and Mexico reiterating the importance that they attach to the inclusion of limitations on the liability of internet services in an updated NAFTA. The letter begins: “ ” NAFTA was negotiated in 1994. The authors of the letter are correct in observing that the “Internet” (which was then capitalized and continues to be so for some — particularly those that think of it as a place rather than as a tool for communication between sentient beings) was obscure and just emerging. Not yet the vehicle for a new generation of billionaires and the production of unicorns. But I am getting ahead of myself. letter When NAFTA was negotiated, the Internet was an obscure electronic network. Since then, the Internet has become a significant — and essential — part of our society and our economy. So exactly what does this group of academics and advocates want to do in a new NAFTA to take account of the changes in our world since 1994? Here’s the truly fantastic part. They urge inclusion of the limitations on platform liability contained in the Communications Decency Act of 1996! Yes, you are reading that correctly. 1996. While they don’t explicitly mention it in their letter, by implication they are also proposing inclusion of the internet platform safe harbors contained in the DMCA, enacted when we were much wiser in 1998. You know, when the internet was fully mature and we could clearly see the advantages and disadvantages of various ways of addressing internet governance. Something that adequately responded to the challenges of invasions of privacy, of fake news and intellectual property theft, of cyber-bullying, of interference in free and open elections. Oh wait, the rules being proposed here are the very ones that ushered in, or at a minimum facilitated, these various problems, not ones that respond to them. The groups and individuals endorsing the open letter want to preserve the status quo, not change it. Because everything is working so well. Returning to the land of the living, it is abundantly clear that the US Congress and governments around the world, including Canada and Mexico, will be re-examining their legal frameworks to create greater accountability throughout the internet ecosystem. Changes that respond to developments of the past twenty years, and in particular to the vulnerabilities of present internet governance exposed by recent events. Changes that reflect experiences rather than ones rooted in quasi-religious fundamentalism. Changes that will hopefully meaningfully address misconduct and breathe life into the potential of the internet to drive prosperity and cultural diversity. To enhance an understanding of our connectedness rather than fueling fear and divisiveness. It is increasingly clear that absolving internet platforms from responsibility for the manner in which they conduct their businesses is not a well-considered way of effecting these changes. If we reward lack of accountability, we surely invite an unaccountable universe. The path ahead is complicated and nuanced as we seek to balance a series of important public policies. Fostering freedom of expression in ways that reflect the realities of our new online marketplaces for ideas will require original thinking. Fully realizing the potential of the internet to drive economic development and cultural diversity will require new business and legal paradigms. But one thing is abundantly clear — we must not cling to the status quo. We can and must do better. And no country should be fooled by the rhetoric of this letter. Canada and Mexico should not adopt the framework chosen by the US at the birth of the commercial internet. Nor should the US seek to so bind our trading partners. While the timing is unknown, there is little doubt but that the US Congress will amend the provisions of the CDA and DMCA. SESTA is on the near horizon. Other changes will follow. The one constant will be a rethinking of the once quaint, but now terrifying, notion that internet services need to be free from any responsibility for their conduct in order to have breathing room to innovate. We should certainly encourage innovation by guarding against the imposition of liability for platforms/services that operate in a reasonable manner, but we have already seen the consequences of rewarding conduct regardless of whether it is reasonable, and it is not a good model of governance. We must not make impossible demands of internet services by making them responsible for everything that takes place through their networks and systems. But we must demand accountability for how they respond to acts which take place via proprietary systems, and most importantly, for how they conduct themselves. Seems preferable to not be blind when doing so. The status quo rewards blindness. I would rather have engineers and architects work with their eyes open. Blanket immunities enrich irresponsible actors and undermine the public interest. And they ignore the fact that platforms are not neutral: they define the possible and monetize the probable. In short, they shape the future. NOTE: For those interested in further background, please note that CCIA and the Internet Association have been on this beat for some time, and have been powerfully rebuffed by members of and by . The joint letter from members of Congress contains the following warning about the consequences of including Section 230 in NAFTA: Congress Consumer Watchdog ” “Including Section 230 in NAFTA in its current form would export a destructive legal battle that will harm sex trafficking victims advertised in Mexico and Canada. Given that Mexico may be the largest source country for sex trafficking victims in the United States, and that Mexico is ranked as a Tier 2 country on the U.S. State Department’s Trafficking in Persons report, we urge you to ensure that any digital trade language in NAFTA does not immunize any company from profiting from the commercialization of sex trafficking, at home or abroad. The United States is a leader in the fight against modem-day slavery, and it would be devastating to set such a harmful example by including Section 230 in NAFTA in its present form .

NAFTA and Unsafe Harbors: Why Calls for Blanket Immunities Must be Rejected

To Cerf, With Love by Neil Turkewitz Last week, Vint Cerf, one of the (sorry, “ ”) and chief evangelist of arguably the most powerful and mysterious company in the world (Alphabet/Google), published a piece in Wired entitled: “ .” fathers of the internet Internet In 2018, we will tackle the internet’s dark side Given that Cerf is essentially Willy Wonka if he were in the information business, including the fact that Mountain View may well be home to an army of Oompa Loompa coders and hackers, I immediately took notice — ready to devour the latest thinking of the man guiding us to, or from, the Singularity. After all, he was about to own up to the irrational exuberance surrounding the development of technology without having considered how it might be used, and how an economy based on achieving optimization of attention would end up distorting public discourse and the economy in ways that were, how can I say this politely…less than optimal in advancing the stated core goals that Cerf and the other fathers of the Internet had espoused. The very title promised a less evangelical approach to internet governance — one that recognized that there was a “dark side” of the internet. And stated so boldly. 2018 as the year when the dark forces undermining the potential of the internet were defeated. Now truth be told, even the title scared me a little. The internet doesn’t really have a “dark side” so much as the entire architecture and core operating assumptions empower conduct without regard to the effects thereof, both at the platform and individual user level. And that the advertising model at the heart of internet platforms encourages activity without regard to the nature of the content. Chaos is not a defect of the system — it is the environment from which monetization of conduct is based. You could look at it as the default condition of the Internet created by Cerf and his fellow fathers. Cerf and the early Internet pioneers were clearly true believers in the capacity of the internet to advance the state of man (which did include women, albeit not on the “father of the Internet” side), and Cerf’s thinking and public statements have often been incisive and brave. His NY Times piece from January of 2012, “ ,” was brilliant, and written long before the current wave of challenging tech orthodoxy and control. He wrote: “ a Internet Access is Not a Human Right Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights. The Internet has introduced an enormously accessible and egalitarian platform for creating, sharing and obtaining information on a global scale. As a result, we have new ways to allow people to exercise their human and civil rights… Improving the Internet is just one means, albeit an important one, by which to improve the human condition. It must be done with an appreciation for the civil and human rights that deserve protection — without pretending that access itself is such a right .” Just one month after the publication of Cerf’s piece, Assistant Secretary of State, Michael Posner, echoed his words. In his keynote address at the 2012 State of the Net conference, Secretary Posner : “ said So yes, the Internet is empowering. Yet we agree with Vincent Cerf, who wrote in an op-ed piece last month that Internet access is not itself a human right. Freedom of expression, assembly and association are human rights. Technology can enable those rights. Technology is not a substitute for political organizing or advocacy or persuasion….Let me state for the record that international law applies to online behavior. Full stop. We do not need to reinvent international human rights law, or our enduring principles, to account for the Internet. No deed is more evil — or more noble — when it is committed online rather than offline. You can’t sell child pornography in Farragut Square or Tahrir Square, and you can’t sell it on the Internet, either. You can’t break into a theater and steal the movie reels and you can’t steal movies online, either. You can’t beat up and gag a peaceful protestor and you can’t jail her for a blog post criticizing a government policy, either.” This is fairly astonishing, no? Six years ago, the chief evangelist of the most powerful internet company in the world, and the US government, the government most directly involved in steering the governance of the internet, each reflected an understanding of the social context of internet communications and the concomitant obligation to avoid internet idolatry premised on some theory of tech exceptionalism. Six years ago, Cerf understood that tech companies could not hide behind the supposed neutrality of their services to defend their role in enabling bad conduct. In 2012, he wrote: “ .” The medium is not the message — the message is the message, and the value of internet platforms turns on what and who it empowers. As we seek to advance the state of the art in technology and its use in society, we must be conscious of our civil responsibilities in addition to our engineering expertise Alas, we have witnessed little progress in hardwiring “civil responsibilities” into the normative structure of Internet governance, and Cerf’s own company, and many groups funded by them, have instead pursued legal and political strategies designed to insulate themselves from responsibility for the conduct which they enable, and from which they profit. . The world, and Silicon Valley in particular, has failed to heed Cerf’s warning about the dangers of glorifying the Internet per se, and people still talk about “Internet Freedom” as if that were a thing separate and apart from the kinds of freedoms that we cherish without regard to modalities. An Internet Freedom which, unlike traditional freedoms, is decontextualized and removed from responsibility and restraint. Freedom for wolves All of which bring us to 2017 and tech’s year of reckoning. When the shiny promise of the potential of the internet to improve the human condition was drowned out by the constant, noisy and ugly news of internet-based harmful conduct. Where the utopian vision of the Internet pioneers was dashed upon the sharp rocks of reality. So how would Cerf follow up on his 2012 call for justice and responsibility? How exactly would he “tackle the dark side?” Alas, Cerf disappoints. He writes: “ ” Some countries regard as harmful? Talk about the understatement of the year. Massive leaks of sensitive financial and other personal data, sex trafficking, interference in elections, an explosion in hate speech, continuing theft of intellectual property jeopardizing the careers of creatives for whom the internet was supposed to be empowering. Cerf thinks that “some governments” regard this conduct as harmful? And the use of the word “filtering” is also very disappointing. It is an inflammatory word that is designed to create an emotional rather than a thoughtful response. The web’s powerful enabling capacity has introduced a range of social disruptions that some countries regard as harmful . There is pressure on the providers of the enabling platforms to filter some of the content, either in accordance with user wishes, for business reasons or because laws are enacted that require redaction. When you are in the communications/information business, making decisions about what you as a service/platform will enable is not filtering. It is the exercise of judgment about your own conduct. And then there’s this: “ The “internet,” now conveniently anthropomorphized, is described as a passive mirror merely reflecting, but not contributing to, the state of present discourse. Is there anyone that truly believes that? The internet has become a mirror of our global societies…Some people are not happy with what they see in this mirror, but make the mistake of thinking that correcting the mirror will fix the problems reflected therein.” Please, please, please, bring back 2012 Cerf. We need him.

To Cerf, With Love

By Neil Turkewitz The biggest story of 2017? To my mind, there is no contest — the broad emergence of an awareness that the irresponsibility masquerading as Internet freedom represented a threat to global societies and to cherished aspects of our humanity, and that a course correction was badly needed. While recognition of the fact that rewarding lack of accountability would likely incentivize anti-social and illegal conduct took longer than it should have, such an awareness came to fruition throughout 2017. Whether motivated by concerns about sex trafficking or the prevalence of other internet-enabled crimes, fake news, foreign government interference in elections, monopoly or monopsony power, or the perceived political or cultural biases of platforms, the question at the end of 2017 wasn’t whether the current legal framework for platform responsibility should be amended, but how. It became clear that the twin pillars upholding the current lack of accountability in the internet ecosystem — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and Section 512 of the DMCA, each of which was adopted at the dawn of the commercial internet, would need to be reexamined and a new framework established. Ideas ranged from minor course corrections such as amending Section 230 to address issues related to sex trafficking (SESTA) and changes to the DMCA to require greater use of technical tools to prevent infringement going beyond mere takedown, to proposals to broadly regulate the operation of platforms given perceived monopoly power over the last mile (access to, and influence over, users). In short, there appeared to be universal acknowledgement that the status quo wasn’t working, and some — as yet unspecified — change was needed. But apparently, if not unsurprisingly, this acknowledgement that the status quo needs to be disrupted isn’t quite shared by everyone. In an end of the year post by EFF’s Jeremy Malcom entitled “ ,” Malcolm writes: “They [safe harbors such as the provisions of Section 512 of the DMCA] are as vital to the Internet today as they have ever been.” His argument is summed up neatly here: “ .” Well, yeah. That’s the very point of effecting change — to modify how platforms operate. Malcolm apparently looks at the internet and sees the flowering of culture and the emancipation of humanity. I want his internet. And I am prepared to work to achieve it rather than pretending it is our reality, and without employing absurd reductionism as if we were holding a referendum on whether technological progress and the internet are good or bad things. . We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but nor should we let the good stand in the way of the better. Time to Rethink Copyright Safe Harbors? 2017 in Review Without that legal protection, it would be impossible for such platforms to operate as they do today The internet is a remarkable tool for expanding communications and access to information in a truly transformational manner. The question is: can we be better stewards, and how can we most fully achieve its potential for enhancing the welfare of societies It would also be nice, but alas probably a bridge too far, to engage in dialogue about solutions without fear-mongering and labeling. In order for Malcolm’s narrative to hold, he has to take the individual creator out of the equation and to pretend that somehow the cultural marketplace is of no concern to actual creators — only to the ominous dark media lords, the dreaded “Big Content.” The ones who brought you SOPA. You know who I am talking about. The Man. Aiming only to defend a failing and exploitative business model. Malcolm works hard to reinforce this false picture, repeatedly referring to “copyright industry lobbyists,” “industry representatives,” “Big Content,” and of course, EFF’s favorite…”monopoly rents.” And suggesting that these industry trolls working in secret to destroy the internet would have gone unnoticed but for EFF’s vigilance. All of which leads to his central lie: “But Big Content isn’t satisfied with such laws, because they place responsibility on copyright holders to request the removal of infringing content, and because the availability of free, user-uploaded content supposedly depresses the value of mainstream, paid entertainment. The content industry thinks a filtered, regulated Internet that suppresses user-uploaded content will deliver them higher revenues, and they describe the absence of these imaginary monopoly rents as a “value gap.” There is no part of this that reflects the world we actually inhabit. 1-Large media companies (whatever that means) are not alone in calling for reform of safe harbors. A quick review of comments and submissions in the EU and US will reveal a creative community unified in its support for reform: businesses and labor, major studios and indies, individual creators and trade associations. And our problem is not that safe harbors place responsibility on copyright owners to request removal, but rather that they fail to place corresponding obligations on platforms to take meaningful action when they know, or should know, of infringing materials. Existing safe harbors in the US, EU and elsewhere create incentives for platforms to avoid knowledge of infringement, and then only obligate platforms to take remedial action which fails to provide an actual remedy. . We need to reset the incentives to breathe life into the legislative intent behind existing legislation to promote cooperation in addressing infringement and expanding the digital marketplace 2-The notion that the creative community is worried about competition to “mainstream, paid entertainment” from free user-uploaded content is truly outrageous. The creative community has no issue with creators determining that they want to offer their works for free. The problem is when users decide to upload the works of others without the creator’s permission. And yes, forcing creators to directly compete against unauthorized versions of their own works is both prejudicial and fundamentally unfair. That doesn’t require a lot of imagination, just a basic sense of fairness and justice. 3-Malcom asserts that there are two alternatives: his free and open internet, or the copyright industries’ filtered, regulated internet that suppresses freedom of expression and delivers monopoly rents. Reductionism at its very worst. The status quo, or some Orwellian nightmare of control. But of course, this is pure fantasy. The core issues related to safe harbors are not about regulation, but rather address the development of a technology-neutral way to achieve the kind of responsibility we would expect in the offline environment. Not more, and not less. To eliminate incentives for recklessness and willful blindness. And yes, to change the status quo. That’s what gets Malcom — he clings to the world he knows, and lives on a slippery slope. But when we resist doing what’s right out of fear of some future unknown, then something is fundamentally wrong. An published just yesterday neatly captured our reality: “ .” article The DMCA and CDA protections enabled a few Silicon Valley giants to become sinfully rich, with a concentration of power not seen since the 1920s. The digital revolution could have succeeded without the ‘disruption’ and their disregard for copyright and content creators . A recent article in Ars Technica entitled “ ? Carefully.” While the underlying notion that Section 230 is “the most important law in Internet history” represents, as Devlin Hartline has , a fetishization of Section 230, I nevertheless agree with the proposition that we must exercise care. But Ars, unlike EFF, doesn’t ask whether the present framework should be amended, only how. I have a modest proposal for 2018: let’s abandon evangelical fervor in favor of policy-making grounded in the observable universe. Let’s acknowledge that lack of accountability will produce unaccountable actions. And let’s be prepared to challenge the status quo to produce the kind of outcomes that enhance societal welfare How do you change the most important law in Internet history noted

Disruption, Fear and Slippery Slopes: Baby Steps in Building a Better Internet

A few important things to consider before we begin: I am a beginner developer and writing articles is my way of learning, this means that there might be errors. If you find any, please let me know in the comments and І will correct them :) Some of the information like definitions or examples are taken from the internet, if you see something that belongs to you and would like credit or it to get removed - please contact me and І will be happy to do so. Learning is fun, so let’s go!🔥 Arrow Functions are a new ES6 js feature and they are essential to understand as they help make your life as a developer easier and more fun :) Let's try to understand it better by comparing them with regular Functions. Here are a few examples of regular functions: Example 1 - Function with two parameters: function sum(a, b) {
 return a + b
} Example 2 - Function with one parameter: function isPositive (number) { 
return number ›= 0 
} Example 3 - Function with no parameters: function randomNumber() {
return Math.random 
} Example 4 -  Anonymous function without a name: document. addEventListener('click', function() { 
console.log(‘Click’)
}) Now let’s try to convert these into the . Regular Functions Arrow Functions Example 1 - Function with two parameters. function sum(a, b) {
 return a + b
}

step 1: 
sum(a, b) {
 return a + b
}

step 2: 
let sum = (a, b) {
 return a + b
}

step 3: 
let sum = (a, b) => {
 return a + b
} This is one of the easiest and most common functions to go around. Step 1 - remove keyword. This is because with arrow function keyword is assumed. function function Step 2 - assign our function to a variable. When we have keyword, it will do it for us but since we remove it, we have to assign our function to a variable in order to store it. For this, we use . Thus we create a variable and with sign store our arrow function in there. function sum let sum = Step 3 - add Arrow ➡️ 😄. This is what creates the magic. It shows that we have parameters on the left side of the Arrow and on the right side of it, in the brackets, we have the function. Now our Example 1 function and function in step 3 are the same! Congratulations on your first arrow function 🎉 This is not the end, we could make it even better! step 3: 
let sum = (a, b) => {

 return a + b

}

Shorten to one line
let sum = (a, b) => a + b With the arrow function, we can shorten our code to one line. This can be done by removing keyword and curly brackets. This is possible because everything after the arrow is assumed to be returned so we can omit and . Now 1st example function = function in step 3 = one-line function, AMAZING MAGIC 🔥 return return {} Example 2 - Function with one parameter: function isPositive (number) { 
return number ›= 0 
} 

Step 1: 
isPositive (number) { 
return number ›= 0 

}

Step 2: 
let isPositive = (number) { 
return number ›= 0 
}

Step 3: 
let isPositive = (number) => { 
return number ›= 0 
}

Step 4: 
let isPositive = (number) => number ›= 0 

Step 5: 
let isPositive = number => number ›= 0 Now lets repeat the proccess for our function with one parameter. Step 1 - remove keyword. function Step 2 - store our function by creating variable with the help of statement. let Step 3 - ARROW ➡️ Step 4 - Remove and brackets. Beautiful 🤓 return Step 5 - since we have one parameter, we can even remove parentheses around the parameter we pass into the function. Bonus Example 3 - Function with no parameters function randomNumber() {
return Math.random 
} “І want to play a game” 👹 Let’s practice a bit. This example follows our 4 steps. Try to do it by yourself and write in the comments one line that you get. Before that, don’t look into the comments. Example 4 -  Anonymous function without a name: document. addEventListener('click', function() { 
console.log(‘Click’)
})
step 1: 
document. addEventListener('click', () => { 
console.log(‘Click’)
})
step 2: 
document. addEventListener('click', () => console.log(‘Click’)) Anonymous function without a name this is where really shine. Arrow Functions Step 1 - remove and add arrow ➡️. Note that we don’t have to assign it to a variable by writing and . function let = Step 2 - put everything in one line and remove curly brackets. It is nice that Arrow Functions help us to write less code but now comes the whole point of using them -  they redefine keyword inside of Arrow Functions as opposed to in Normal Functions. Here it is used much differently. this this : w3schools explains the difference “In regular functions the this keyword represented the object that called the function, which could be the window, the document, a button, or whatever. With arrow functions the this keyword represents the object that defined the arrow function.” always So basically, Arrow Functions helps us to simplify function scope and make the process of using keyword much easier. this To better understand it let’s see how is used in ES5. this var cat = {
name: 'Garfield', 
showName: function() {
 alert(this.name);
  }
};
cat.showName(); // it will show - Garfield Here we have a simple object - cat. Inside this object, we have a (function that belongs to an object). So what is referring to here? Right! It will point out to the object method this cat. Next, lets see how behaives inside method’s function: this var cat = {
  name: 'Garfield',
  tasks: ['transform', 'eat fish', 'sleep'],
  showTasks: function() {
    this.tasks.forEach(function(task) {
      alert(this.name + " wants to " + task);
    });
  }
};
cat.showTasks();
// [object Window] wants to transform
// [object Window] wants to eat fish
// [object Window] wants to sleep Hmm… you see how instead of we are getting [object Window]? cat What might be our guesses as to why this is happening? Method’s inner function? showTasks: function() {
    this.tasks.forEach(function(task) {
      alert(this.name + " wants to " + task);
    }); The whole object - cat? The truth is that has fallen out of scope. ‘This’ always points to the owner of the function it is in and since we are out of the scope - we then deal with a global object, which is window. this When it is inside of an object’s method — the function’s owner is the object. Thus the ‘ ’ keyword is bound to the object. Yet when it is inside of a function, either stand-alone or within another method, it will always refer to the window/global object. this Our method has two functions with , the one that should point to the name is inner and thus falls out of the scope. this One more example from the internet: function Person() {
    this.name = 'Jack',
    this.age = 25,
    this.sayName = function () {

        // this is accessible
        console.log(this.age);

        function innerFunc() {

            // this refers to the global object
            console.log(this.age);
            console.log(this);
        }

        innerFunc();

    }
}

let x = new Person();
x.sayName();

// output:
// 25
// undefined
// Window {} So, in regular functions changes according to the way that function is invoked - it is dynamic. This is a poor design which can in some cases lead to unpredicted behavior while using keyword. this this On the other hand, the value of inside an arrow function remains the same throughout the lifecycle of the function and is always bound to the value of in the closest non-arrow parent function which means No matter how or where being executed, value inside of an arrow function always equals value from the outer function. this this this this function Person() {
    this.name = 'Jack',
    this.age = 25,
    this.sayName = function () {

        console.log(this.age);
        let innerFunc = () => {
            console.log(this.age);
        }

        innerFunc();
    }
}

const x = new Person();
x.sayName();
// output:
// 25
// 25 One Important thing to remember is that even though Arrow Functions brings lexical scoping that makes it easier to use , you should be careful because we cannot use it everywhere. this If you like the article and find it helpful, І will be happy to further explore Arrow Functions together with you  🎉 JS Arrow Functions For Newbies Pt2?  👍 👎

NTWRK

thentwrk.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

NTWRK

EVERGREEN INDEX #7821

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

NTWRK WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

NTWRK

thentwrk.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

NTWRK

EVERGREEN INDEX #7821

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT NTWRK

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

NTWRK WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!