 |
|
|
|||||
The DJI Osmo Action 5 Pro Adventure Combo bundle is on sale via Amazon for $369. This is 18 percent off and represents a record low price, as the normal cost is $449. The bundle includes the well-regarded Action 5 Pro camera, a trio of rechargeable batteries, a protective frame, a lens cover, an extension rod and more. We heaped praise on the Osmo Action 5 Pro camera in our official review, calling it a worthy GoPro rival. The battery life here is next-level, allowing for over two hours of use when shooting 4K 60p video and four hours when shooting in 1080p. Again, this bundle comes with three batteries, which means twelve full hours of continuous shooting in 1080p. Thats a whole lot of ski jumps or whatever. Theres also 47GB of internal storage, in addition to a microSD slot. Most action cameras dont even have internal storage, so this is a much-appreciated upgrade. The Action 5 Pro is lightweight and waterproof down to 66 feet. Theres a waterproof case that extends this limit to 200 feet, but that doesnt ship with this particular bundle. As for the actual footage, we found it to be serviceable, but thought the color was slightly oversaturated. The video is also a bit less sharp than whats produced with rival cameras. Other than these minor nitpicks, however, this is a near-perfect action camera, and those accessories sure sound useful. The Adventure Combo isnt the only bundle on sale right now, though it is the best value. The Essential and Standard bundles are also on sale, at $319 and $329 respectively. Follow @EngadgetDeals on Twitter and subscribe to the Engadget Deals newsletter for the latest tech deals and buying advice.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/deals/this-dji-osmo-action-5-pro-bundle-is-cheaper-than-ever-175747696.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
In an utterly shocking, consumer-friendly move, Max won't charge for something previously offered for free. Warner Bros. Discovery said on Wednesday that it's shelving its previously announced plan to charge an extra $10 monthly for sports and news content. Instead, it's cutting the content from the ad-supported tier next month, which sounds reasonable enough. In 2023, Max said its Bleacher Report (B/R) Sports Add-On tier would only be free until February 2024, when it would become a $10 add-on for all tiers. But that date came and went (and then went some more) without news of the extra fees. Viewers waited silently like students who hoped their teacher would forget their homework assignment. Then, last September, Bloomberg reported that the $10 fee was still in the works and could arrive as soon as that month. Uh oh. But today's news puts those concerns to rest, at least for paying subscribers. Ad-supported members will lose access to B/R Sports and CNN Max (the news network's streaming redo) on March 30. Warner says those on that tier who want to retain access to sports and news can visit the Max Help Center for more info. So far, that page says nothing about it, so you'll probably want to check back closer to the cutoff date. B/R Sports streams more than 1,700 live games and events annually across leagues like the NBA (although it loses those rights after this season), MLB, NHL, NCAA, NASCAR and more. Meanwhile, CNN Max is Warner CEO David Zaslav's latest attempt to turn a CNN streaming service into a revenue stream something the debt-ridden company direly needs. This month alone, it made sweeping cuts to its games division and began offering some of its movies on YouTube. Although Max subscribers will welcome today's announcement, there's reason to question whether the free integration will be permanent. In its press release, where you have to assume words were chosen carefully and pored over by layers of management, Max only said it won't pursue that path "for now." This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/streaming/max-reverses-course-wont-charge-extra-for-live-sports-and-news-175010512.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
Less than two weeks before Donald Trumps inauguration, Meta announced sweeping changes to its content moderation procedures, reportedly at the behest of Mark Zuckerberg and a small group of advisors. Among those caught off guard was the companys own Oversight Board, the independent organization created by Meta to help shape its most sensitive policy decisions. The group is now looking to examine those changes, and in doing so, will test the enforceability of its own powers. The changes Meta has enacted drastically reshape how the company polices content across Facebook, Instagram and Threads. It ended its fact-checking program in the US, and rolled back hate speech rules that protected immigrants and LGBTQ users on its apps. Unlike its previously proactive approach, it also reoriented its content moderation procedures so that many types of rule-breaking posts will only be removed if other users reported them. The changes have raised questions about the role of the Oversight Board, which was created, Zuckerberg once said, because Facebook should not make so many important decisions about free expression and safety on our own. If thats what Meta is now doing, critics have asked, what exactly is the point of an ostensibly independent Oversight Board? But the Oversight Board is already working to address Metas rewritten hateful conduct policy, according to board member Paolo Carozza, who spoke to Engadget. When Zuckerberg announced the changes in early January, the board already had four open cases involving Metas hate speech rules. The board now plans to use those cases to examine the new policies, which were rewritten to allow people to use dehumanizing language to describe immigrants and accuse LGBTQ people of being mentally ill. We deliberately delayed the decision of those cases after January 7, precisely so that we could go back to Meta again and ask a new round of questions, Carozza, a law professor at Notre Dame who joined the Oversight Board in 2022, told Engadget. We're trying as much as possible to use the tools that we have to find out more information, bring more transparency and more certainty to how it's going to play out in practice. The board, according to Carozza, has already had briefings with Meta as it pushes for more details about the new hate speech policies. But it could still be some time before its findings are made public. The open cases deal with several aspects of Metas hate speech rules, including immigration, gender identity, hateful symbols and incitement of violence. In addition to the questions surrounding each case, Carozza said that the board is also grappling with how to prioritize the case decisions given the renewed importance of the underlying policies. There are competing concerns about being quick and efficient versus being more thoughtful and deliberative, he said. But while the board may hope to provide more transparency about Metas decision-making, its unclear how much influence the board will ultimately end up having. Under its rules, Meta is only required to comply with the groups decisions surrounding individual posts. The boards policy recommendations are non-binding and Meta has a mixed track record at implementing its suggestions. Its also unclear how the board might be able to weigh in on Metas other changes, like the shuttering of fact-checking programs or shift away from proactive content moderation. We were quite critical of the fact checking program in general, but our ordinary cases make it a little bit hard to get at that problem because it doesn't come up through an appeals process within the scope of the kinds of cases that we get, Carozza says. The board, he notes, could write a policy advisory opinion as it has with rules around COVID-19 misinformation and Metas cross-check rules for celebrities. But the board is only empowered to make those kinds of non-binding recommendations at Meta's request. That gets at one of the fundamental tensions of the Oversight Board: it may operate independently, but Meta ultimately dictates how much influence it can wield. It would be unrealistic to expect that the standard for value and success of the board is that Meta, 100% of the time, does everything we ever tell them to do, Carozza says, Were one piece of a complicated jigsaw puzzle of accountability and oversight. Still, the fact that the group wasnt consulted on such major policy moves has raised some uncomfortable questions for the board. Dozens of civil society groups recently signed an open letter urging board members to resign in protest. In a letter to Zuckerberg, some members of Congress said the board is rendered toothless when Meta refuses to follow its own principles. Carozzo acknowledges the Oversight Boards limitations, but says that the billions of people on Metas apps are ultimately better off with the board intervening where it can. If everybody were to resign en masse the only people who would lose are Metas end users, especially those who are in especially vulnerable situations [and] communities around the world.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/the-oversight-board-will-weigh-in-on-metas-new-hate-speech-policies-174044682.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||