When Mouse Pads and Clicks Are Not Enough Google Pays Publishers
June 2, 2022
Watch for flying pigs. It looks like Google has finally caved to pressure from EU news publishers and regulatory agencies. Or do regular publishers now have value for the company? Reuters posts, “EXCLUSIVE: Google Paying More than 300 EU Publishers for News, More to Come.” Reporter Foo Yun Chee writes”
“Google has signed deals to pay more than 300 publishers in Germany, France and four other EU countries for their news and will roll out a tool to make it easier for others to sign up too, the company told Reuters. The move to be announced publicly later on Wednesday followed the adoption of landmark EU copyright rules three years ago that require Google and other online platforms to pay musicians, performers, authors, news publishers and journalists for using their work. News publishers, among Google’s fiercest critics, have long urged governments to ensure online platforms pay fair remuneration for their content. Australia last year made such payments mandatory while Canada introduced similar legislation last month. read more ‘So far, we have agreements which cover more than 300 national, local and specialist news publications in Germany, Hungary, France, Austria, the Netherlands and Ireland, with many more discussions ongoing,’ Sulina Connal, director for news and publishing partnerships, said in blog post seen by Reuters and expected to be published later on Wednesday. The blog did not say how much publishers were being paid.”
It did, however, say the new tool would offer thousands of news publishers throughout Europe the chance to sign up. Google will be able to display thumbnail images and article snippets in exchange for the undisclosed licensing fee. Will this arrangement be enough to placate EU regulators?
Cynthia Murrell, June 2, 2022
NSO Group: Here We Go Again
June 1, 2022
That Israeli outfit NSO Group has nailed the art of publicity. Positive PR? Nope. Not so positive? Yep. But as a wit allegedly said, “Any publicity is good publicity?”
Maybe.
“NSO’s Cash Dilemma: Miss Debt Repayment or Sell to Risky Customers” tries to explain some of NSO Group’s alleged activities. [This Financial Times’ article resides behind a paywall.] The write up states:
Hulio [one of NSO Group’s senior managers] said there was one option to bring in some cash quickly enough to pay salaries and service debt: reassemble a defunct internal committee and approve sales to customers flagged as “elevated risk” during due diligence.
Why is this allegation of money pressures sparking consideration of sales to nation states which may present some challenges to NSO Group, its managers and staff, and its investors?
My thought is that money must be followed.
A pursuit of money sparked some actions at other search and content processing centric companies. I mentioned this idea in my recent essay “Autonomy Business Details: Are These Relevant to Search- and Content Processing Type Outfits Today?”
The decision to generate revenues seems to open the door for many ideas. Some of these are okay; for example, selling more licenses to governments of NATO countries. A few may have been less well received; for example, relaxing the criteria used to determine what countries could license Israeli surveillance innovations.
US sanctions and the PR cyclone have created a number of business challenges for NSO Group. The path forward according to the Financial Times’ article looks like this:
In recent months, Hulio has come up with a new plan dubbed the “phoenix plan” by company insiders. The idea is to split NSO’s greatest assets from its greatest liabilities — this meant separating the code behind Pegasus and company engineers who are highly paid graduates of Israel’s elite military intelligence units, from the clients that have drawn the ire of the US and human rights groups. Hulio and a group of creditors hope that by spinning out a new entity that houses the code and engineers, it can sidestep the commerce department’s blacklist, especially if a new owner were a top US defence contractor.
What’s the outlook for NSO Group? Three possibilities strike me:
- Other companies will fill the gap. Just as Cellebrite has to deal with an upstart iPhone penetration solution, NSO Group will find that its methods provide a springboard to other innovators.
- NSO Group gets folded into a government agency. One can be sure it will not be a part of a nation state with negative thoughts about Israel.
- NSO Group folds its tent, and certain senior managers and engineers set up another company and move on.
I want to mention that the reason there is a glass ceiling for revenues from intelware and policeware is that there are a finite number of customers for the number of products and services on offer. Once that glass ceiling bumps the head of senior managers and stakeholders, then what I see as “drastic” actions kick in. Are Palantir’s comments about nuclear war and example of this?
I am certain about one thing: NSO Group is one of the most recognized brands of intelware in the world.
Stephen E Arnold, June 1, 2022
What Happens When Wild West Innovation Operates without Barbed Wires to Corral the Doggies?
June 1, 2022
I have seen quite a few comments about a facial recognition company called PimEyes. My hunch is that ClearView.ai is happy to see that another magnet for commentary has surfaced. The write up I found interesting was “The Facial Recognition Search Engine Apocalypse Is Coming.” The cited article points to the New York Times’ exposé of a high tech outfit the NYT professionals did not know much about. Dispersing this cloud of unknowing allows for comments about the negatives associated with facial recognition. Security benefits related to entering a building with restricted access? Well, not a factor.
Here’s the comment I found in the cited article that edges closer to a substantive issue:
I’d never heard of PimEyes before, but suspect we’ll be hearing about it more going forward. I also suspect this is a losing game of whack-a-mole. Machine learning is clearly already good enough to do this with spooky accuracy, and it’s only going to get better. Should we try passing legislation to strictly regulate facial recognition search? Sure. But I suspect it’s futile, particularly given the global nature of the internet.
With few consequences and no government-generated guidelines, what will high school science club members do when they leave behind rocket motors and Raspberry Pi spy cameras? These clever lads and lassies do pretty much whatever they want.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? My hunch is that guidelines, like the wonky sonnet form Willie Shakespeare followed, can improve innovation and possibly spill over into adulting thought about a particular capability. Right now, stampede those cows, partner! It may not be an apocalypse, but those hooves can do some damage to humanoids who are in the path of progress.
Stephen E Arnold, June 1, 2022
American Edge: A Covert Facebook-Funded Propaganda Machine?
June 1, 2022
Do not be fooled by that local opinion piece arguing against regulations on big tech. It just might be sponsored by Facebook-funded advocacy group American Edge. Catchy name. The Washington Post reveals, “Facebook Quietly Bankrolled Small, Grassroots Groups to Fight Its Battles in Washington.” Reporters Cat Zakrzewski and Elizabeth Dwoskin write:
“Backed by millions from Facebook-parent company Meta, American Edge has launched a full-throated campaign to combat antitrust legislation in Washington, placing op-eds in regional papers throughout the country, commissioning studies, and collaborating with a surprising array of partners, including minority business associations, conservative think tanks, and former national security officials. It’s a political playbook more common to other industries, including pharmaceuticals, tobacco and telecommunications. But tech companies, under heightened scrutiny from federal regulators, are seizing on these methods.”
The article notes Facebook (aka Meta) also recently paid a proxy to malign competitor TikTok in the media. Multi-million-dollar lobbying efforts from Facebook (and other tech giants) are nothing new, but how long has the company been bankrolling from the shadows? Such practices go back to at least 2011, we are reminded, when the company hired a firm to disparage Google’s privacy practices. Then there was the paid third-party criticism of George Soros in 2018 after the billionaire (openly) funded several groups critical of Facebook.
The article observes the company has had more reason employ underhanded PR in the wake of its shaky reputation over the last few years. In a show of chutzpah, Meta’s branded propaganda insists the company is eager to work closely with policymakers on solutions that are best for us all. Contrast that to the messaging from its covert mouthpiece. The writers tell us:
“In advertisements and op-eds, American Edge plays on fears about the tech prowess of China, a talking point of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The group also argues, in ominous tones, that new antitrust laws will weaken the American tech sector, hurting the tools used by minority-owned small businesses and dismantling companies that could provide a line of defense against cyber attacks from an increasingly aggressive Russia. National TV spots, staring local entrepreneurs from Arizona and Mississippi, portray such issues as vital to America’s heartland. The group’s messages pop up in the local TV news in Utah, defense-focused trade publications, conservative websites and on social media — absent Facebook’s name, an omission that serves a broader purpose.”
The article discusses the trail of funding that links Meta with American Edge and details several examples of the shill’s handiwork that appear all over print media and the internet. In fact, legislators crafting antitrust legislation find themselves hounded by targeted ads from the organization. Do such “fundings” demonstrate that Facebook-type companies follow a consistent pattern as part of the firm’s business strategy?
Cynthia Murrell, June 1, 2022
Senior Citizens Take to TikTok
June 1, 2022
More bad news for Facebook? Yep.
We learn from The Guardian, “Older People Using TikTok to Defy Ageist Stereotypes, Research Finds.” Does an influx of Boomers and above on the typically Gen-Z platform counteract the image of frail and technophobic oldsters? We are told their millions of followers suggest it just might. Citing a recent study, reporter Amelia Hill writes:
“The paper looked at 1,382 videos posted by TikTok users who were aged 60 or older and had between 100,000 and 5.3 million followers. In total, their videos, all of which explicitly discussed their age, had been viewed more than 3.5bn times. Ng found that 71% of these videos – including those from accounts such as grandadjoe1933, who has 5.3 million followers, and dolly_broadway, who has 2.4 million followers – were used to defy age stereotypes. A recurring motif was the ‘glamma’, a portmanteau combining ‘glamorous’ and ‘grandma’, with videos including those of a 70-year-old woman joyfully parading around the streets in a midriff-bearing top. Almost one in five of the videos analyzed made light of age-related vulnerabilities, and one in 10 called out ageism among both younger people and their own contemporaries. Other videos positioned older users as superior to younger people. ‘I may be 86 but I can still drink more than you lightweights’ says one clip. ‘I may be 86 but I can still twerk better than you,’ says another, showing an octogenarian leaping up from a fall down the stairs with a twerk.”
Um, are we sure followers are supporting these content creators, not just laughing at them? Perhaps it does not matter, as long as the elders are having a bit of fun. See the write-up for more examples of seniors strutting their stuff on TikTok. The trend emerges as, according to the Pew Research Centre, more folks over 65 are finally obtaining smartphones and joining the rest of the world online. It seems many are eager to make their presence known.
Cynthia Murrell, June 1, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
