Naomi Gleit helps keep Facebook growing

The gig: As senior director of Facebook Inc.'s growth, engagement and mobile team, Naomi Gleit helps grow the social network's 1-billion-plus user base.

Facebook employee No. 29: Few people outside Facebook have heard of Gleit, but she's the second-longest-serving Facebook employee, after Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Gleit, 29, talked her way into a job at Facebook on July 18, 2005 — her birthday. She was Facebook's 29th employee, coming on board shortly after the company hit 1 million users and before anyone had an inkling of the colossus it would become.

Dogged spirit: Unlike most other early employees who eventually dispersed to seek new fortunes, Gleit says she has no intention of leaving Facebook. She gets that tenacity from her "tiger mom," a computer programmer who ferried her to ballet, piano, karate and Chinese lessons, and her Jewish father, an immigration lawyer who took her to Hebrew school, she said. "I know it sounds completely irrational, but I had no doubt in 2005 that Facebook would be something incredible in the future," she said.

Rival social networks: Her passion for Facebook began before she was hired, when she was a Stanford undergraduate studying science, technology and society, an interdisciplinary major. She wrote her senior thesis on why Facebook beat out rival college social networking site Club Nexus at Stanford. (Club Nexus was started by Stanford student and Turkish software engineer Orkut Büyükkökten, who went on to create Orkut, Google's first attempt at a social network.) Getting in on the ground floor at Facebook made her feel like she was taking part in something bigger than herself, the same feeling she got volunteering for six months in a refugee camp in Botswana, she said.

Growing with Facebook: Gleit helped Facebook push beyond colleges to high schools and eventually to everyone. In late 2007, when the torrid growth pace temporarily cooled, Zuckerberg tapped a team of five to reignite it and asked Gleit to lead product management. It fell to the growth team to identify the obstacles to the company's momentum. In a company ruled by engineers, Gleit, who never studied programming, earned respect with her analytical approach and intuitive understanding of people. "I always believed that growth was the most important thing, the most important way to impact the company," she said. There are now more than 150 people on the team. "It's been an incredible learning experience," she said. "Each year is different."

That magic moment: Those who work closely with Gleit say part of her success early on was her ability to seize on the "magic moment" that makes users fall in love with Facebook. She made it simpler to sign up, and she helped people find friends as soon as they joined. She also helped Facebook spread quickly to new countries by enlisting users to translate the service into more than 80 languages. Gleit helps her team parachute into new markets and traverse less-familiar languages and cultures. It's something that comes from her own passion to see the world and have new experiences. She has taught on a Navajo reservation and lived in a Buddhist monastery in Thailand.

One billion users: Around noon Sept. 14, Zuckerberg gathered with Gleit and dozens of employees in front of a big screen as the number of Facebook users crossed 1 billion. "The scale was insane," she said. "But that is not the goal. When Mark talks about his vision for Facebook, he talks about being able to connect everyone in the world to the people that they care about and provide some value for them every single day."

A problem solver: Zuckerberg calls on Gleit for high-profile projects. In May 2010, when Facebook was under siege because of how it was handling users' personal information, he put Gleit in charge of simplifying privacy settings. Last year she worked on a popular feature that lets users subscribe to a News Feed without having to become Facebook friends.

Betting on mobile: Now Gleit is focused on the future: mobile devices and how they can unlock emerging markets. Gleit knew back in 2011 that people would begin to log on to Facebook from mobile devices in greater numbers than from desktops, particularly in the developing world. So she traveled to Tel Aviv to buy Snaptu, which makes software that helps people on low-tech phones access Facebook, and she brought the whole team back to Silicon Valley with her. Now Facebook is surging in popularity on mobile devices in Tokyo and Nairobi, Kenya. "I have always been interested in technology and how it can be used to improve lives," Gleit said.

jessica.guynn@latimes.com

Read More..

Ashton Kutcher files for divorce from Demi Moore

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Ashton Kutcher filed court papers Friday to end his seven-year marriage to actress Demi Moore.

The actor's divorce petition cites irreconcilable differences and does not list a date that the couple separated. Moore announced last year that she was ending her marriage to the actor 15 years her junior, but she never filed a petition.

Kutcher's filing does not indicate that the couple has a prenuptial agreement. The filing states Kutcher signed the document Friday, hours before it was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Kutcher and Moore married in September 2005 and until recently kept their relationship very public, communicating with each other and fans on the social networking site Twitter. After their breakup, Moore changed her name on the site from (at)mrskutcher to (at)justdemi.

Kutcher currently stars on CBS' "Two and a Half Men."

Messages sent to Kutcher's and Moore's publicists were not immediately returned Friday.

Moore, 50, and Kutcher, 34, created the DNA Foundation, also known as the Demi and Ashton Foundation, in 2010 to combat the organized sexual exploitation of girls around the globe. They later lent their support to the United Nations' efforts to fight human trafficking, a scourge the international organization estimates affects about 2.5 million people worldwide.

Moore was previously married to actor Bruce Willis for 13 years. They had three daughters together — Rumer, Scout and Tallulah Belle — before divorcing in 2000. Willis later married model-actress Emma Heming in an intimate 2009 ceremony at his home in Parrot Cay in the Turks and Caicos Islands that attended by their children, as well as Moore and Kutcher.

Kutcher has been dating former "That '70s Show" co-star Mila Kunis.

The divorce filing was first reported Friday by People magazine.

___

Anthony McCartney can be reached at http://twitter.com/mccartneyAP.

Read More..

Alabama to End Isolation of Inmates With H.I.V.

Jamie Martin/Associated Press

The H.I.V. ward of an Alabama women's prison in 2008. The state was ordered to stop segregating inmates with the virus.

A federal judge on Friday ordered Alabama to stop isolating prisoners with H.I.V.

Alabama is one of two states, along with South Carolina, where H.I.V.-positive inmates are housed in separate prisons, away from other inmates, in an attempt to reduce medical costs and stop the spread of the virus, which causes AIDS.

Judge Myron H. Thompson of the Middle District of Alabama ruled in favor of a group of inmates who argued in a class-action lawsuit that they had been stigmatized and denied equal access to educational programs. The judge called the state’s policy “an unnecessary tool for preventing the transmission of H.I.V.” but “an effective one for humiliating and isolating prisoners living with the disease.”

After the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s, many states, including New York, quarantined H.I.V.-positive prisoners to prevent the virus from spreading through sexual contact or through blood when inmates tattooed one another. But most states ended the practice voluntarily as powerful antiretroviral drugs reduced the risk of transmission.

In Alabama, inmates are tested for H.I.V. when they enter prison. About 250 of the state’s 26,400 inmates have tested positive. They are housed in special dormitories at two prisons: one for men and one for women. No inmates have developed AIDS, the state says.

H.I.V.-positive inmates are treated differently from those with other viruses like hepatitis B and C, which are far more infectious, according to the World Health Organization. Inmates with H.I.V. are barred from eating in the cafeteria, working around food, enrolling in certain educational programs or transferring to prisons near their families.

Prisoners have been trying to overturn the policy for more than two decades. In 1995, a federal court upheld Alabama’s policy. Inmates filed the latest lawsuit last year.

“Today’s decision is historic,” said Margaret Winter, the associate director of the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the inmates. “It spells an end to a segregation policy that has inflicted needless misery on Alabama prisoners with H.I.V. and their families.”

Brian Corbett, a spokesman for the Alabama Department of Corrections, said the state is “not prejudiced against H.I.V.-positive inmates” and has “worked hard over the years to improve their health care, living conditions and their activities.”

“We will continue our review of the court’s opinion and determine our next course of action in a timely manner,” he wrote.

During a monthlong trial in September, lawyers for the department argued that the policy improved the treatment of H.I.V.-positive inmates. Fewer doctors are needed if specialists in H.I.V. focus on 2 of the 29 state’s prisons.

The state spends an average of $22,000 per year on treating individual H.I.V.-positive inmates. The total is more than the cost of medicine for all other inmates, said Bill Lunsford, a lawyer for the Corrections Department.

South Carolina has also faced legal scrutiny. In 2010, the Justice Department notified the state that it was investigating the policy and might sue to overturn it.

Read More..

E-book restrictions leave 'buyers' with few rights

There's a crass old joke about how you can never buy beer, just rent it. Who would think that the same joke applies to book buying in the digital age?

But that's the case. Many people who'll be unwrapping iPads, Amazon Kindles or Barnes & Noble Nooks on Tuesday morning and loading them with bestsellers or classics won't have any idea how limited their rights are as their books' "owners."

In fact, they won't be owners at all. They'll be licensees. Unlike the owners of a physical tome, they won't have the unlimited right to lend an e-book, give it away, resell it or leave it to their heirs. If it's bought for their iPad, they won't be able to read it on their Kindle. And if Amazon or the other sellers don't like what they've done with it, they can take it back, without warning.

All these restrictions "raise obvious questions about what 'ownership' is," observes Dan Gillmor, an expert on digital media at Arizona State University. "The companies that license stuff digitally have made it clear that you own nothing."

Typically, e-book buyers have no idea about these complexities. How could they? The rules and limitations are embodied in "terms of service" documents that Amazon, Apple, B&N and other sellers shroud in legalese and bury deep in their websites. That tells you how little they want you to know.

The rules are based, in turn, on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, with which Congress hoped to balance the rights of copyright holders and content users. "In the digital environment, that's always been the trickiest balance to strike," Annemarie Bridy, a specialist in intellectual property law at the University of Idaho, told me. In those terms, the DMCA looks like a failure.

Both camps have important rights to protect. Let's start with copyright owners.

In the non-digital world, copyright ends with the first sale of each copyrighted object. Under the "first sale" doctrine, once you buy a book, that physical book is yours to lend, give away, or resell. Copyright is safeguarded by the limitations of physical transfer — once the book is given or loaned, the original buyer no longer has access to it. If a library owns five copies of a book, only five borrowers can read it at the same time. Theoretically a book can be photocopied, but only at great effort and with a perceptible loss of quality.

In digital-dom, however, technology allows infinite copies to be made, with no loss of quality. Absent the usual restrictions, one could give away an e-book and still have it to read. Unrestricted transferability becomes a genuine threat to the livelihood of authors, artists, filmmakers, musicians.

So some limitation is sensible. That's usually done through digital rights management, or DRM, which encodes copy or usage limitations into the digital file. The DMCA protected DRM by outlawing efforts to circumvent it (with a few exceptions).

The question is whether the balance has tipped too far in favor of the booksellers, at the consumers' expense. The answer is yes.

For one thing, DRM has put far too much power in the hands of digital booksellers. Amazon, in particular, has shown it can't be trusted with that power. In 2009, having learned that it inadvertently had sold unauthorized e-book versions of George Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm" through its website, the company simply deleted those e-books from buyers' Kindles stealthily, without warning.

An uproar followed, not least because Amazon's Orwellian behavior involved those Orwellian masterpieces. Amazon settled a subsequent lawsuit by promising never to steal a book back from a Kindle without the device owner's permission.

But earlier this year, the company was revealed to have unilaterally shut down the access of Linn Jordet Nygaard, a Norwegian Kindle owner, to her library of 43 e-books, for reasons it refused to divulge. Another uproar, and Amazon backed down again, restoring Nygaard's account — again without explanation. Amazon refused my request for comment.

Another downside of e-book DRM is that most e-books are tied to the seller's reading device or apps. Buy a book from Amazon, and you can read it only on a Kindle or Amazon app. Buy it from Apple, and it can be read only on an Apple device.

This lock-in gives the booksellers power over not only consumers but publishers. In fact, it led several publishers to make a price-fixing deal with Apple that aimed to undermine Amazon's market power, but ended with their getting whacked with a big federal antitrust fine instead.

Moreover, notwithstanding the public impression that digital is forever, nothing is permanent in the digital world. In fact, digital content can be less permanent than physical books. In libraries you can find volumes that date back hundreds of years and can still be read (if carefully); but there are digital files that date back only a decade yet are completely unintelligible today.

Nowhere does Amazon, Apple or any other distributor pledge to support its digital formats in perpetuity. Quite the contrary: They typically warn that they can cancel their service at any time, without warning, in a way that could end your access to a lifetime of e-book purchases in the flash of an electron. They could also go out of business, leaving millions of dependent customers in the lurch.

Amazon keeps your purchased content for free on its own servers — the term is "in the cloud" — for downloading to your Kindles as needed. You pay once for an e-book and can use it on all the Kindles you own. I can't find any written promise by Amazon that this storage will always be free. If it announces a few years from now that henceforth there will be a monthly fee to store books purchased, say, more than 10 years ago, what rights will you have to resist? None.

There are ways to protect your e-books from grasping e-booksellers or the future. Programs available on the Web can strip the DRM code from your purchased items — for books, one possible method involves an e-library management program called Calibre. The program easily can be augmented with a DRM-stripping application so you can convert e-books sold in any proprietary format into a different format or even as plain text.

But is it legal? No one is quite sure, and that's a problem. The DMCA makes it unlawful to circumvent certain DRM protection, but doing so on an item you've bought and want to keep in a different format for your own use — not to make multiple copies for sale — may not break the law. On the other hand, distributing software that enables that is illegal under the DMCA even if the goal is legitimate, which is absurd.

Even if reformatting a file you own is legal, what if you don't own it? The hard-to-find terms of service of e-book sellers specify that you're only licensing a book, not buying it (although the Amazon order page does say you're "buying" it). "In the digital context, it's not clear that the 'first sale' has ever occurred," says Bridy.

It should be a top priority for Congress to clear out the murk. Buyers of e-books must have the explicit right to reformat their purchases and save backup copies for their own use, permanently. The sale of an e-book must be irrevocable. On the other side, it must remain strictly illegal to make multiple unauthorized copies of any copyrighted work for distribution. Lending by libraries, one digital copy at a time, should be facilitated — it tends to widen the audience for books.

The guiding principle must be that an e-book owner's rights and responsibilities parallel those of a book owner, and the same must go for authors, publishers and booksellers. "Someone once observed to me that if libraries were being invented today, publishers would try to make them illegal," Gillmor says.

Clarify these rules of e-book commerce, and the book market will reap the benefit. The power of electronic booksellers over publishers might be reduced, and consumers would know what they were buying — and would own what they bought. Leave the rules as vague as they are, and the victims will be authors, consumers and publishers.

Michael Hiltzik's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Reach him at mhiltzik@latimes.com, read past columns at latimes.com/hiltzik, check out facebook.com/hiltzik and follow @latimeshiltzik on Twitter.

Read More..

Hedge fund manager alleges Herbalife is 'pyramid scheme'

Herbalife Ltd. is girding for a fight against a Wall Street money man who's betting $1 billion that the company is nothing more than what he called a "pyramid scheme."

The Los Angeles maker of nutritional products rushed to defend itself Thursday against a hedge fund manager's accusation.

Hedge fund titan Bill Ackman accused Herbalife of paying its sales staff far more money to recruit new distributors than to actually sell its products.

That results in the roughly 2.6 million distributors at the bottom of the sales pyramid making little or no income, while a handful at the top hauls in millions, he said.

"This is the best-managed pyramid scheme in the history of the world," Ackman said.

The company denied the allegation and accused Ackman of trying to manipulate the stock. Herbalife shares slumped 10% on Thursday and are off 21% in the two days since Ackman announced that the company is in his sights.

"Today's presentation was a malicious attack on our business model based largely on outdated, distorted and inaccurate information," Herbalife said in a statement. "We are not an illegal pyramid scheme."

Herbalife, which bills itself as a so-called multilevel marketer, has beaten back similar accusations in the past. But the company has rarely faced a nemesis such as Ackman.

The 46-year-old billionaire has fashioned a career on high-stakes gambits in controversial companies. His fund firm, Pershing Square Capital Management, manages $12 billion.

Showdowns between companies and skeptical investors historically play out behind closed doors, especially in the normally sleepy pre-holiday period.

But in a measure of the aggressive tactics favored by an emerging breed of activist investors, Ackman launched a public blitzkrieg Thursday. He gave a flashy multimedia presentation to a packed conference room in New York that was streamed live on the Internet.

"I've never seen anything quite like it," said Timothy Ramey, an analyst at D.A. Davidson & Co. "I've never seen an investor spend 31/2 hours of time at a major venue being webcast and then make TV appearances to make his point. It's the largest orchestrated bull or bear case that I've ever seen."

The brawl has potential repercussions for both sides.

Ackman claimed to have spent one year doing intensive research on Herbalife's operations, an unusually extended period given Wall Street's thirst for immediate results.

Earlier this year, Ackman began betting that Herbalife's stock would fall sharply.

His fund is "shorting" more than 20 million shares of the company. In a short sale, an investor borrows stock and sells it immediately, hoping to later buy the shares at a reduced price and return them to their actual owner.

Ackman promised to donate all profit from his Herbalife bet to charity, and portrayed his public diatribe as intended for the public good.

"I'm very fortunate to have the means to pursue this," he said. "I am independently wealthy. When I believe in something, I can say what I want and do what is right."

For Herbalife, the fight threatens to damage its credibility among investors who have always been sensitive to claims that its business is illegitimate.

Herbalife, which was founded in 1980, sells a line of diet powders, bars, drinks and vitamins through a network of independent distributors in more than 80 countries. The company reported sales of $3.5 billion in 2011.

Its chief executive, Michael O. Johnson, was the highest paid executive in the United States last year, hauling in more than $89 million in salary, exercised stock options and other compensation, according to GMI Ratings, a corporate governance firm.

The company has fought criticism of its business model throughout its existence.

In 2008, for example, self-proclaimed fraud buster Barry Minkow shorted Herbalife's stock and then accused the company of a host of misdeeds. The company survived those accusations and Minkow ultimately went to prison on unrelated charges.

This was the second time this year that investors punished Herbalife because of questions about its business practices. Herbalife shares fell 20% in May after hedge fund operator David Einhorn asked pointed questions during an earnings call.

"We operate at the highest ethical and quality standards, and our management and our board are constantly reviewing our business practices and products," Herbalife said. "We also hire independent, outside experts to ensure our operations are in full compliance with laws and regulations."

Ackman and Herbalife engaged in a bitter and bizarre war of words, with Johnson saying the United States will "be better when Bill Ackman is gone."

Ackman interpreted the statement as a threat and said he has hired a security firm to protect him.

stuart.pfeifer@latimes.com

walter.hamilton@latimes.com

Read More..

Reacting to users’ outcry, Facebook’s Instagram reverts to prior policy on advertising

SAN FRANCISCO – Instagram has abandoned wording in its new terms-of-service agreement that sparked outcry from users concerned it meant their photos could appear in advertisements.

In a blog post late Thursday, the popular mobile photo-sharing service says it has reverted to language in the advertising section of its terms of service that appeared when it was launched in October 2010.

Instagram is now owned by Facebook Inc. and maintains that it would like to experiment with different forms of advertising to make money.

Its blog post says that it will now ask users’ permission to introduce possible ad products only after they are fully developed.

The outcry to the changes announced earlier this week led the company to clarify that it has no plans to put users’ photos in ads.

Social Media News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: Reacting to users’ outcry, Facebook’s Instagram reverts to prior policy on advertising
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

Marilyn Monroe subway grate photo on view in NYC

NEW YORK (AP) — A famous image of Marilyn Monroe with her skirt billowing atop a New York City subway grate is on display in a picture-perfect spot: outside the Times Square subway station.

The supersized version of Sam Shaw's well-known picture is part of an exhibit. The exhibit also features eight of Shaw's other Monroe pictures, on view inside the 42nd Street-Bryant Park station on the B, D, F, M and 7 lines.

The show opened Thursday. It'll be up for a year.

Shaw shot the subway grate photo for the 1955 film "The Seven Year Itch." He took the other pictures in 1957.

The exhibit is part of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Arts for Transit program. Manager Lester Burg says matching a mass transit setting with a popular figure from mass culture seemed a good fit.

Read More..

Hedge fund manager alleges Herbalife is 'pyramid scheme'

Herbalife Ltd. is girding for a fight against a Wall Street money man who's betting $1 billion that the company is nothing more than what he called a "pyramid scheme."

The Los Angeles maker of nutritional products rushed to defend itself Thursday against a hedge fund manager's accusation.

Hedge fund titan Bill Ackman accused Herbalife of paying its sales staff far more money to recruit new distributors than to actually sell its products.

That results in the roughly 2.6 million distributors at the bottom of the sales pyramid making little or no income, while a handful at the top hauls in millions, he said.

"This is the best-managed pyramid scheme in the history of the world," Ackman said.

The company denied the allegation and accused Ackman of trying to manipulate the stock. Herbalife shares slumped 10% on Thursday and are off 21% in the two days since Ackman announced that the company is in his sights.

"Today's presentation was a malicious attack on our business model based largely on outdated, distorted and inaccurate information," Herbalife said in a statement. "We are not an illegal pyramid scheme."

Herbalife, which bills itself as a so-called multilevel marketer, has beaten back similar accusations in the past. But the company has rarely faced a nemesis such as Ackman.

The 46-year-old billionaire has fashioned a career on high-stakes gambits in controversial companies. His fund firm, Pershing Square Capital Management, manages $12 billion.

Showdowns between companies and skeptical investors historically play out behind closed doors, especially in the normally sleepy pre-holiday period.

But in a measure of the aggressive tactics favored by an emerging breed of activist investors, Ackman launched a public blitzkrieg Thursday. He gave a flashy multimedia presentation to a packed conference room in New York that was streamed live on the Internet.

"I've never seen anything quite like it," said Timothy Ramey, an analyst at D.A. Davidson & Co. "I've never seen an investor spend 31/2 hours of time at a major venue being webcast and then make TV appearances to make his point. It's the largest orchestrated bull or bear case that I've ever seen."

The brawl has potential repercussions for both sides.

Ackman claimed to have spent one year doing intensive research on Herbalife's operations, an unusually extended period given Wall Street's thirst for immediate results.

Earlier this year, Ackman began betting that Herbalife's stock would fall sharply.

His fund is "shorting" more than 20 million shares of the company. In a short sale, an investor borrows stock and sells it immediately, hoping to later buy the shares at a reduced price and return them to their actual owner.

Ackman promised to donate all profit from his Herbalife bet to charity, and portrayed his public diatribe as intended for the public good.

"I'm very fortunate to have the means to pursue this," he said. "I am independently wealthy. When I believe in something, I can say what I want and do what is right."

For Herbalife, the fight threatens to damage its credibility among investors who have always been sensitive to claims that its business is illegitimate.

Herbalife, which was founded in 1980, sells a line of diet powders, bars, drinks and vitamins through a network of independent distributors in more than 80 countries. The company reported sales of $3.5 billion in 2011.

Its chief executive, Michael O. Johnson, was the highest paid executive in the United States last year, hauling in more than $89 million in salary, exercised stock options and other compensation, according to GMI Ratings, a corporate governance firm.

The company has fought criticism of its business model throughout its existence.

In 2008, for example, self-proclaimed fraud buster Barry Minkow shorted Herbalife's stock and then accused the company of a host of misdeeds. The company survived those accusations and Minkow ultimately went to prison on unrelated charges.

This was the second time this year that investors punished Herbalife because of questions about its business practices. Herbalife shares fell 20% in May after hedge fund operator David Einhorn asked pointed questions during an earnings call.

"We operate at the highest ethical and quality standards, and our management and our board are constantly reviewing our business practices and products," Herbalife said. "We also hire independent, outside experts to ensure our operations are in full compliance with laws and regulations."

Ackman and Herbalife engaged in a bitter and bizarre war of words, with Johnson saying the United States will "be better when Bill Ackman is gone."

Ackman interpreted the statement as a threat and said he has hired a security firm to protect him.

stuart.pfeifer@latimes.com

walter.hamilton@latimes.com

Read More..

Family, fans say goodbye to Jenni Rivera

Jenni Rivera was remembered in death the same way she was celebrated in life: on an illuminated stage, with thousands of fans chanting her name.

The singer, who was killed in a plane crash earlier this month, was honored Wednesday with what her family called a "celestial graduation," a musical memorial that packed the Gibson Amphitheatre with 6,100 people and drew hundreds more outside.

The more than two-hour farewell could have been mistaken for a concert, if not for the crowd's tears and the ruby-red casket on stage. In front of it was a cluster of white roses, the type of flower Rivera's family asked fans to bring. Behind it was a single microphone, left unused.

Family members — clad head-to-toe in white — praised Rivera as a "perfectly imperfect" mother and a guerrera, Spanish for "female warrior." Her father, Pedro Rivera, a noted singer of the Mexican ballads known as corridos, said goodbye by performing a song he wrote about her, "La Diva de la Banda."

Rivera's 11-year-old son, Johnny Lopez, addressed the sea of mourners in a white suit and red bow tie. His father died a few years ago.

"Mama, I've been crying so much these last few days. I miss you so much," he said, his voice breaking. "I hope you're taking care of my dad and I hope he's taking care of you, too."

He added: "I want to thank everyone for loving my mom."

Rivera, a Long Beach native, first gained fame via her banda music, a Mexican regional style heavy on machismo and brass instruments. A rare woman in the genre, Rivera often sang — in Spanish and English — about her chaotic personal life: three husbands, five children and struggles with her weight and domestic violence.

Rivera sold more than 20 million albums and, in recent years, had started to expand her business empire. She had a weekly radio program, clothing and cosmetics lines and a hand in several reality shows, including "I Love Jenni."

She and six others were killed Dec. 9 when a private jet that had departed Monterrey, Mexico, nose-dived 28,000 feet in 30 seconds and smashed into mountainous terrain. Rivera was 43.

"My sister, Jenni, died in a plane accident, but it was not an accident," Pedro Rivera Jr., a pastor and Rivera's brother, told the crowd in Spanish. "God has a purpose for all of us and God let us borrow her for 43 years and enjoy her."

It was clear how deeply Rivera had touched her legion of fans.

At the memorial, several well-known Latino singers performed, including Ana Gabriel, Olga Tanon and Joan Sebastian.

Outside, her fan base arrived early, blasting her music from cars decorated with tributes: "Jenni, we love you" and "We are going to miss you." They wore Jenni Rivera T-shirts and Jenni Rivera pins and waved handmade posters. One woman said Rivera was now performing "in a concert with God."

Lidia Farrias and her husband, Jose, drove three hours from Santa Maria. They didn't have tickets — the event sold out within minutes — so they shivered outside, eyes fixed on two jumbo screens streaming the memorial. Farrias said Rivera's frank lyrics had encouraged her to be a stronger woman.

"Whenever I listened to her songs, I felt like I could tackle anything," she said.

Denise Montalvo, 15, had left San Diego at 1 a.m. with her mother, aunt and two family friends. She admired Rivera for striving to obtain a better life, just like Denise's family. The teenager said Rivera wanted her funeral to be a celebration, reflecting her song "Cuando Muere una Dama" — "When a Lady Dies."

"We're trying not to be sad," she said.

That was hard for fans, particularly as the memorial wound down. One by one, each of Rivera's family members placed a white rose on her casket. Some whispered to it. Some kissed it. Then they walked away.

ruben.vives@latimes.com

adolfo.flores@latimes.com

Times staff writer Ashley Powers contributed to this report.

Read More..

New Online Privacy Loophole Lets Facebook Advertise to Kids

Mark Zuckerberg‘s been eager to find a way to get more kids on Facebook for years, and on Wednesday, the Federal Trade Commission handed it to him on a platter. That might be overstating it a little bit. It’s more like the FTC served it to him on a platter covered in plastic wrap with a note attached that says “Do not open.” Nevertheless, should Facebook decided to see what’s inside, experts in online privacy for children say the social network could legally start peddling everything from kids’ bicycles to that new gender-neutral Easy Bake Oven.

RELATED: German Official Urges Citizens to Stop Using Facebook

After months of deliberating and plenty of lobbying on both sides of the issue, the FTC updated the controversial Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) this week. The changes were absolutely designed to better protect children in the privacy-invading era of social media, especially from the data-hungry advertisers who want to sell them things. Websites like Facebook don’t allow kids to sign up without their parents permission, generally because COPPA has prohibited them from collecting the kinds of information they need to serve them ads. And why would they want a user to whom they couldn’t serve ads? Under the new FTC rules, parental permission is required for just about anything a kid would do on Facebook, including uploading photos, videos and geolocational information. Tracking tools like cookies are also verboten without a parent’s permission.

RELATED: What Police Learn About You When They Subpoena Your Facebook Account

But there’s a loophole. The new rules say very plainly that no parental permission is needed “for the sole purpose of supporting the website or online service’s internal operations, such as contextual advertising, frequency capping, legal compliance, site analysis, and network communications.” The key phrase there is “contextual advertising,” which is an ad product Facebook has been working on for a while. Facebook’s version basically reads your News Feed and shows you ads that are relevant, or contextual, to what you’re reading. As a few people have pointed out, this opens a door for Facebook to start exploring the idea of ad-supported profiles for kids. Alan Simpson, the vice president of child privacy advocacy group Common Sense, isn’t happy about this idea. “Common Sense doesn’t like this part, and the industry lobbyists probably do,” he told TechCrunch Monday evening.

RELATED: What Facebook Does to Kids’ Brains

Now, there are a lot of ifs in this scenario. Based on the magnitude and sensitivity of the issue, Facebook probably doesn’t want to go scaring a bunch of parents by sneaking through loopholes to show their kids Easy Bake Oven ads. It has been nearly a decade and a half since COPPA got an update, though, and Mark Zuckerberg isn’t really known for his patience. Of course, Facebook could do what they’ve been doing for ages, which is look over their shoulder while kids lie about having permission and sign up anyways.

Social Media News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: New Online Privacy Loophole Lets Facebook Advertise to Kids
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..