Amnesty International: Unfriending As an Agent of Change
October 3, 2022
I read “Meta’s Horrendous Role in Facilitating Rohingya Genocide Detailed in New Report.” I am not sure how much of the story is just more of the “Get the Zuck Out of Here” versus objective, dispassionate analysis. You can decide for yourself after you read “The Social Atrocity: Meta and the Right to Remedy for the Rohingya.” You can download the report from Amnesty International at this link.
In the cited article “Meta’s Horrendous…”, I noted this statement:
Meta is being sued for $150 billion by refugees for its role in the violence.
The number is interesting. If the litigation achieves its goal, the Meta outfit (what I call the Zuckbook) will have to write a check. I wonder how much the possible settlement will go to legal eagles?
Another interesting statement in the cited article said:
“Amnesty International’s analysis shows how Meta’s content-shaping algorithms and reckless business practices facilitated and enabled discrimination and violence against the Rohingya,” the report said. “Meta’s algorithms directly contributed to harm by amplifying harmful anti-Rohingya content, including advocacy of hatred against the Rohingya. They also indirectly contributed to real-world violence against the Rohingya, including violations of the right to life, the right to be free from torture, and the right to adequate housing, by enabling, facilitating, and incentivizing the actions of the Myanmar military.”
I noted the word “reckless”, “torture”, and “military.” The word choice suggests that the Zuckbook can be weaponized because its management team was otherwise engaged.
True or false? My hunch is that the litigation will provide an answer. Oh, the payday for the legal eagles involved will feather some nests.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2022
Repeating Ads: Good Business?
October 3, 2022
Ad tiers are a viable way to make streaming services affordable to more viewers, a reality even Netflix and Disney Plus have accepted. There is just one problem. The Verge implores, “Streaming Services Need to Stop Showing Me the Same Ad Over and Over (and Over).” Writer David Pierce describes an annoyance all too familiar to many of us: shows punctuated with the same ad so often one involuntarily memorizes it. A first-world problem to be sure, but maddening none the less. Advertisers bear the brunt of viewer annoyance—too much repetition and viewers may vow never to purchase the now overly familiar product. But it is not advertisers’ fault. The write-up explains:
“There’s a perfectly rational reason for why this happens, by the way. It’s all about ad targeting. Let’s just take my own recent example, CroppMetcalfe. I’m a new homeowner, in the company’s area of service, with a 20-year-old HVAC unit that we know is going to need to be replaced soon. There’s a pretty good chance CroppMetcalfe knows that, too! I’m absolutely the company’s target market. But there aren’t that many people in my exact situation, and Peacock surely promised the company a certain number of ad impressions. If there were a million people who fit the bill, no problem. But if there are 500 of us, and a million impressions to serve, I’m going to get an awful lot of that five-star jingle. Everybody involved has a reason to fix this, too. There’s evidence to show that people who see the same ad over and over and over actually become less likely to buy the thing being advertised, and customers have been complaining about repetitive ads for years. In a Morning Consult survey from last year, 69 percent of respondents said the ads on streaming services were either ‘very repetitive’ or ‘somewhat repetitive.'”
To make matters worse there is currently no way to coordinate ad campaigns across providers, which means the same repeated ads dog viewers from platform to platform. The important question is whether showing the same ad over and over again is a type of online advertising fraud. Annoyance is one thing; sucking down the advertiser’s money for zero payoff or even negative returns is quite another. Pierce offers a couple suggestions. He likes the rare practice of showing one long ad at the beginning of a show and leaving viewers to watch the rest in peace. Then there are ads that display on the pause screen when one has already interrupted oneself. Whatever the solution, it would be best to fix the problem before someone gets sued.
Could this repetition be a form of “soft” fraud?
Cynthia Murrell, October 3, 2022
Microsoft: Now It Is the Chinese Because Russia, Well, Russia
October 3, 2022
Brad Smith, president of Microsoft Corp, pinned the blame for the SolarWinds’ misstep on 1000 super cyber warriors from the all-time leader in muffing bunnies. With Russia’s special operation, few would attribute technical super powers to a nation state unable to refuel tanks or prevent troops from eating poisoned cookies offered by a grandmotherly type. China, I think it is your turn to be cast as the dark nemesis for the outstanding Microsoft Exchange Server.
“More Trouble for Exchange Server As Zero-Day Exploits Attacked” asserts:
Microsoft has acknowledged the issues in a post on the Security Response Center, identifying two vulnerabilities, one a Server Side Request Forgery, and another that allows remote code execution via PowerShell. These vulnerabilities are apparently being currently exploited, with signs pointing to China state sponsored hacking groups, who are known to use some of the web shells used in the attacks.
Are there fixes? Sure, the write up reports:
The company also lists some possible detection techniques using Microsoft Sentinel, Defender for Endpoint, and Defender Antivirus.
Microsoft offers some after-the-fact words in this oracular Redmondian emission. Do I have some questions? Nah. Been there. Done that. Do I have observations? Nah, been there and done that too.
One thing could be added to the list of life’s certainties: Microsoft and security are the new peanut butter and jelly of technology. Bad actors love the combo.
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2022